Memorandum - Town of Breckenridge

Town of Breckenridge
Planning Commission Agenda
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Breckenridge Council Chambers
150 Ski Hill Road
7:00
Call to Order of the February 15, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting; 7:00 p.m. Roll Call
Approval of Minutes February 1, 2011 Regular Meeting
3
Approval of Agenda
7:05
Consent Calendar
1. Sundowner I Exterior Remodel (JP) PC#2011002
445 Four O’Clock Road
7:15
Worksessions
1. Forest Health / Voluntary D Space Update (JC & MGT)
8:15
Town Council Report
8:25
Preliminary Hearings
1. The Elk Mixed Use Building (MM) 2011001
105 North Main Street
9:25
9:30
Other Matters
1. Follow up on Saving Places Conference
9
27
32
Verbal
Adjournment
For further information, please contact the Planning Department at 970/453-3160.
*The indicated times are intended only to be used as guides. The order of projects, as well as the length of the
discussion for each project, is at the discretion of the Commission. We advise you to be present at the beginning
of the meeting regardless of the estimated times.
Town of Breckenridge and Summit County governments
assume no responsibility for the accuracy of the data, and
use of the product for any purpose is at user's sole risk.
Breckenridge South
Sundowner I Exterior Remodel
445 Four O'Clock Road
printed 2007
2 of 46
J
Elk Mixed Use Building
103.5 North Main Street
Town of Breckenridge
Planning Commission – Regular Meeting
Date 02/01/2011
Page 1
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Trip Butler
Kate Christopher
Rodney Allen
Dan Schroder
Mark Burke (Town Council)
Jack Wolfe was absent.
Gretchen Dudney
Dave Pringle
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Dudney: On Page 6, please change “it should count as density and it can be amortized” to “it should count as
density and the tap fees can be amortized”.
Ms. Dudney: On Page 7, please change Mr. Neubecker’s statement from “should a cart would be allowed” to
“should a cart be allowed”. Also on Page 7, please change “Cart shouldn’t be in front of either façade” to “Cart
shouldn’t be in front of either façade if the building is on a corner.”
With the above changes, the January 18, 2010, Planning Commission meeting minutes were approved unanimously
(6-0).
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
With no changes, the Agenda for the February 1, 2011 Planning Commission meeting was approved unanimously
(6-0).
WORKSESSIONS:
1. Town Attorney Update (CN)
Mr. Neubecker introduced Mr. Tim Berry, Town Attorney, to the members of the Commission who may not have
met him. Mr. Berry presented a memo to the Commission under separate cover discussing ethics and the Planning
Commission in regard to various topics, including legislative vs. quasi-judicial decisions, ex parte contact, prohibited
conduct, and conflicts of interest.
Ethics presentation needs to be done occasionally, because it is important to the Commission. Need to understand
why the Planning Commission should observe the code of ethics. Ex parte communication that affects an
application can result in a lawsuit against the Town. It is not pleasant to be accused publicly or to be accused by a
judge to have acted unethically. Never, ever give anyone the ability to sue you on a procedural matter. The
procedure on how you handle applications and hearings is completely in our control. If you haven’t had an ex parte
contact issue, you will. The longer you are on the Commission, the higher the chance you will encounter an ex parte
contact.
Concepts we are talking about are part of due process, which requires the applicant be given a fair and unbiased
hearing from an uninvolved judge. When you are making law, it is procedural. When you are enforcing law, you
are perceived as the judge. Ex parte contact is contact made by you on quasi-judicial matter (an application which
has a PC number attached to it or will have a PC number attached to it). Once you are asked for approval or denial,
that is a quasi-judicial matter. Its completely different from review of policy. Example is a resident approaches you
outside of a hearing and tells you that they are opposed to a certain application. They want to tell you because they
are going to be on vacation on the date of the hearing. Everyone in the hearing needs to be able to hear the same
body of evidence. The best way to avoid an ex parte contact is to not let it happen. As politely as possible, stop
them. Tell them they need to come to the hearing so everyone can hear their opinion. If that does not happen, and
they keep talking, tell them you will have to recuse yourself from the application presentation. The best way to
handle this is to disclose during the public meeting any ex parte contact you have had. This contact often occurs to a
council candidate in the weeks prior to the April election. By making it a political issue, and getting themselves
elected, they may have disqualified themselves from voting on that issue. Applies to the applicant running into you
at grocery store as well; the public and the rest of the commission would not have heard their comments. Everything
relevant to the hearing has to be heard here, in the hearing.
3 of 46
Town of Breckenridge
Planning Commission – Regular Meeting
Date 02/01/2011
Page 2
Site visits should be such that the Planning Commission should only be talked to by the staff. All comments should
be funneled from the applicant through the staff to the Commission. (Mr. Neubecker: We will often remind you on
site visits to stay in one group so everyone hears the same thing.)
Commissioner Questions / Comments:
Mr. Burke:
Does this also apply to me as a Town Council person? (Mr. Berry: If it is a development
application as opposed to a legislative matter, then yes.) It is not just about the person, it is also
about the project. (Mr. Berry: Yes, absolutely.)
Ms. Dudney:
Back to your example that the person is going to be out of town, can they write a letter to be
entered into the record? (Mr. Berry: Yes, they can. The key is making sure not only that you get
the letter, but that the letter gets to the staff to go to all members of the Planning Commission as
well as the applicant.)
Ms. Christopher: If they say an email (about a particular application or applicant) they sent is “in confidence”, we
just have to tell them this is public record and then pass it along to staff? (Mr. Berry: Yes.)
Mr. Schroder:
What about conceptual plans? (Mr. Berry: No, you are talking about a specific application for a
specific piece of property. Where it gets tricky is a worksession. Technically there is no
application. My taking is that anything that could become an application, treat it with kid gloves.
Chances are a worksession will turn into an application, so go ahead and disclose that contact.)
(Mr. Neubecker: It should be disclosed at the meeting where the worksession or the application
is presented so that the applicant can hear the ex parte contact, not necessarily at the very next
meeting.)
Mr. Allen:
In the situation of getting approached well before an application is made, does that apply? (Mr.
Berry: Technically no; however, tell them they really need to go talk to staff first. It would be
improper for you to help them figure out how to make an application. The essence of what we
are doing is making sure each application is presented fairly, with no pre-judgment or bias.)
Mr. Pringle:
It could be that if we deny an application, the applicant or someone from the public would sue
because they felt there was ex parte contact that led the commission to deny the project. (Mr.
Berry: Yes, and that is why all ex parte contact needs to be disclosed.)
Breckenridge conflict of interest rule from the Town Charter since 1981 states that conflict is determined by the
Town Council (or Commission), not by the individual. Three rules on conflict: 1) disclose it on the record; 2) if the
decision is that you have a conflict, you leave the table and abstain from voting; and 3) refrain from attempting to
influence the Planning Commission decision on the item. For example, sitting in the back of the room and shaking
your head during the presentation. It is a conflict of interest to be judging an application that may be your
competition. It is not just “follow the money”, there is something else. There might be something about the
application that would make it look fundamentally unfair for a member to be judging a certain application. The
appearance issue is a broader discussion. (Mr. Grosshuesch: Can you be impartial to a competitor’s application?)
Right, your gut will usually tell you.
Mr. Burke:
Mr. Pringle:
Ms. Butler:
Mr. Schroder:
Mr. Burke:
What if the member does not disclose their conflict? (Mr. Berry: That is fine; it is up to the
board to disclose that about another member. The best way is to let that member know prior to
the meeting, less difficult to do than on the floor.) So your hope is then the member with the
conflict raises it themselves? (Mr. Berry: Yes.)
What if your wife is involved in an application? (Mr. Berry: Three words: follow the money. If
you or your spouse is going to benefit financially from the transaction, then that needs to be
disclosed.) So any family member? Spouse, child? (Mr. Berry: Yes, any family member.)
Might be like our conversation last time, about this vendor cart won’t be a competition to me, but
it could appear to be a conflict to another person.
So the gut test is the best. (Mr. Berry: The “follow the money” concept is key. Having these
discussions in a public hearing always helps. Laying the issue on the table in public makes it
very hard to challenge the decision.)
So as long as it is debated in public, and the committee may decide there is no conflict, then as
long as that happened in public, that is ok? (Mr. Berry: Absolutely. The problem is when the
discussion happens after the decision is made.) (Mr. Grosshuesch: Often we will ask the
4 of 46
Town of Breckenridge
Planning Commission – Regular Meeting
Mr. Pringle:
Mr. Burke:
Mr. Pringle:
Ms. Dudney:
Mr. Allen:
Mr. Pringle:
Mr. Berry:
Date 02/01/2011
Page 3
applicant if they have an issue or see a conflict.) Do you think that is appropriate for staff to ask
that question? (Mr. Berry: Yes, absolutely. I would love to have in the record that the applicant
heard the conversation, and agrees there is no conflict.)
As we become more mature as a group, we can be sure to be most cautious on the applications
that may be controversial. (Mr. Berry: My hope is that all applications be treated equally;
however, I am not naïve.) With respect to worksessions, they are not a formal application, if the
applicant comes in, and wants to have a worksession, my opinion is that it is more informal, more
of a Q & A, no decisions are made. (Mr. Berry: There is nothing wrong with the Commission
stating think this looks good to proceed with a formal application, but no guarantees, it will
depend on the code.) We may have a couple of worksessions on one project. We may discuss
different aspects of the project at each worksession, and then they want to go to final hearing.
(Mr. Neubecker: Generally, we only do one worksession; does the applicant want to go down
road A or road B? We then try to go to preliminary hearing.) We have had a number of different
applications that have been two or three worksessions first, then they go to final.
What about the vendor carts discussion? (Mr. Neubecker: That is legislative issue. We are only
judging new applications on the adopted code.) (Mr. Berry: That is a legislative issue; you will
be making law, not enforcing law. You have to rule on the law that exists at the time of the
application, not what is coming down the pike later on.)
How much can an applicant take away from a worksession that the opinion of the commission
will carry forward to their application? (Mr. Berry: They are taking the temperature of the
commission, nothing more.) (Mr. Mosher: We are pretty firm with the applicants, that they must
do a full application to get a decision.) (Mr. Berry: A worksession does not stand in the same
stead as a preliminary hearing. Everything you say in here is code based.) (Mr. Mosher: The
applicant will often realize after a worksession they are going down the wrong path, and can then
make some adjustments to the application to get approved with the code. It is not a guarantee at
all.) Basically anything we discuss at a worksession, we are working on good faith, but we are
not making any decisions.
In support of what Mr. Pringle is saying, if you ask for something and an applicant says “we
already showed that to you”; perhaps we need to remind the applicant to bring everything with
them for the preliminary and final hearings.
How about disguising your question as a comment? We are all kind of guilty of doing that from
time to time. (Mr. Berry: You don’t make a decision until you have heard all the evidence. In
the real world, you know where the evidence is going to go. Coming into a final hearing with
your mind absolutely made up, before hearing the evidence, is wrong. I would ask you to try to
be careful to not give the appearance of making a decision before hearing all the evidence. It is
hard in the real world to tell you how to phrase your questions. Everyone here needs to make an
effort to hear the evidence and then make the decision. You don’t ever want to walk into a
hearing saying “I know what I am going to do”. As long as you are willing to hear what the
evidence is, you will be in better shape.)
Never get caught making a conclusion to anyone until you are asked to vote.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I am in Town Hall each Tuesday and in
my office in Leadville the rest of the week.
2. Transition Area Standards: South End Residential (MM)
Mr. Mosher presented. This review of the South End Residential Transition Character Area involves a difference
between the map boundary illustrated in the adopted “Handbook of Design Standards for the Historic and
Conservation Districts” and the un-adopted “Handbook of Design Standards for the Transition Areas of the
Conservation District”. However, in this case, the un-adopted map shows the boundary expanding to include the
school and Carter Park. The report suggests moving this boundary, but after some discussion, Staff is suggesting
keeping the boundary as adopted.
The introductory paragraph of this section identifies the importance of Carter Park (which appears in historic
photographs) and of the school. The un-adopted map includes these properties in the boundary (plus abutting
properties). If any redevelopment were to occur on these properties, then the South End Residential Transition
5 of 46
Town of Breckenridge
Planning Commission – Regular Meeting
Date 02/01/2011
Page 4
Character Area design standards would be applicable. Noré Winter, of Winter and Company, created the original
documents. He is still doing this kind of work; you may have the opportunity to meet him at the Saving Places
Conference this week. Expanding the boundary would have substantial impacts to the existing multi-family
homeowners and the school property - could be a down-zoning.
Mr. Grosshuesch: The way the Transition Standards are currently adopted, the standards are to protect the existing
Historic District. The debate that went on when Mr. Winter expanded it was “Do we want to expand the area?” We
already have the Historic District and abutting Transition Area as a buffer.
Mr. Mosher: Even if the map is not expanded the Development Code and the Land Use Guidelines will still have
enough “teeth” to require compatible architecture. The Planning Commission and the Code would have enough
teeth to bring any new architecture into a more compliant look in these areas.
Commissioner Questions / Comments:
Mr. Burke:
My concern is that expanding an area will affect people’s private property rights. Have you
spoken to the public about this? (Mr. Neubecker: We will get the Staff and the Commission’s
input first and then we will be holding public meetings. The school will be exempt unless they
sell the property or redevelop the property.) Those areas looked like an area where people would
want to restrict the uses.
Mr. Pringle:
You would still have reasonable use of your property.
Ms. Dudney:
To which multi-family homeowners are you referring? (Mr. Mosher indicated them on the map.)
Mr. Allen:
Is the school in a different land use district? (Mr. Grosshuesch: If we don’t like the land use
district the school is in, we could fix that.) Do we want it like Sunbeam Estates or do we want it
like High Street? (Mr. Grosshuesch: Land Use District 26 allows 4 units per acre. If we have
made the decision that we don’t want to include this, let’s make that decision and move on.)
Make sure everyone is on board, like homes in Boulder Ridge or High Street? (Mr. Mosher:
Staff feels pretty confident that keeping the boundary where it is will work fine with the Code we
have.)
Consensus amongst the Commission to leave the map as adopted. Instead of expanding, leave this area as is.
Staff is going to put all of the items the Commission has reviewed. We will put it together, highlight the changes we
made, and pull it together into one item with the key changes noted. Then we will have another discussion with the
Commission and then have a discussion on how to engage the public before presenting to the Council. We will
present all 7 together as several phases overlap, and owners may have an interest in more than one. Similar to the
process we went through with the Neighborhood Preservation policy. We will look at this one more time.
3. Sustainable Breck Update (MT & CK)
Mr. Truckey presented. Staff briefed the Planning Commission on the Town’s Sustainability project at an April
meeting in 2010. Since then, an extensive public process was undertaken through the summer of 2010 to gather
input on a variety of sustainability issues. Through the fall and winter, the Town’s Sustainability Task Force (a
subcommittee of the Town Council) has been reviewing the public comments/input received and is finalizing a list
of actions that will be undertaken to further the Town’s goals towards sustainability.
The process that has led up to the development of the Sustainable Breck Plan has been extensive. Staff went
through several years of research, which included the Town’s capacity analysis and the 2030 report. The Planning
Commission was briefed on these projects as they were undertaken.
The Town’s approach towards sustainability has been to take a holistic view of the subject. Some communities
focus their sustainability efforts primarily on energy consumption and reducing their carbon footprint. This is an
important part of the Town’s effort; however, the Town also takes on diverse issues such as housing, child care,
transportation, and land use. Without addressing all of these issues, we cannot hope to achieve a truly sustainable
community. By March or April, Staff anticipates holding a public open house to release a list of sustainability
actions that will be the centerpiece of the Sustainable Breck Plan. After that, the Town Council will go through the
formal process of adopting the Plan.
6 of 46
Town of Breckenridge
Planning Commission – Regular Meeting
Date 02/01/2011
Page 5
Many of the action steps identified in the draft Sustainability actions have broad policy implications beyond the land
use planning realm, while some of the recommendations may ultimately result in amendments to the Development
Code. Some examples of suggested code/land use guideline amendments included in the draft Sustainability
Actions are:
•
Amend the Land Use Guidelines to identify service commercial uses as a preferred use in appropriate locations
•
Designate an appropriate location at the north end of Town for limited small-scale commercial services
•
Modify Development Code to further incentivize private sector housing development
•
Adopt new Development Code policy related to wildlife habitat protection
A key component of the Plan will be a series of measurements that will be monitored over time, with periodic report
cards being released to the community regarding how the Town is progressing on a particular issue (e.g., energy
consumption). The philosophy is that the Sustainability Action Plan will be an ongoing living document that is
regularly monitored, with the goal of sustaining our community and its resources. Almost everything in the
Sustainability Action Plan ties back to the Vision Plan for our community. Hoping to wrap up our meetings with the
task force in the next month. There were definitely some issues we could not take on. We definitely looked at what
can we address to help things work better 20 years from now.
Staff will be glad to answer questions regarding the Sustainable Breck project and take any comments from the
Commission. Given the Planning Commission’s scope of responsibilities, Staff requests that you limit your
comments to land use related issues.
Mr. Kulick presented the slide show from the Sustainable Breck wrap up meeting. We anticipate having a public
open house and then adopting the Sustainable Breck Action Plan and moving forward with the initiatives. The key
is going to be monitoring our progress. It is important for us to measure and consistently monitor results. We have
a lot of different plans in the Town, but many of them are not really user friendly. The goal of the Sustainability
Action Plan is to give the public access, via technology and the web, to get a snapshot of how we are doing in
certain areas. We will be able to have the quick snapshot on the main page, and then have links to background
information for each topic. This will make what would be an 80 or more page document much more accessible and
user friendly.
Commissioner Questions / Comments:
Ms. Schroder:
Is the original goal to have an annual update? Is that feasible, with staff levels the way they are?
(Mr. Truckey: Yes. The economic indicators, which Julia Puester has been working on closely
with Council, will be updated monthly. The rest will be annually.) (Mr. Kulick: There are many
monitoring information sources already in place, it will be easy to update more regularly if
needed.)
Mr. Pringle:
Is a plan like this nimble enough to react to economic situations, for example, on a regular basis?
(Mr. Truckey: It is meant to be a living document. Yes, we will be working with the Council to
update them on any changes and change the plan as needed.) (Mr. Grosshuesch: This is the most
important part of this plan that we have not had before with other plans. The public can check on
the website any day of the year and see how we are doing. We have the ability to change track as
needed when the Council requests moving in another direction.) (Mr. Kulick: For example,
regarding traffic, you might get a complaint from a citizen, but when armed with a trend, you can
point out the actual case. Since 2001, there has actually been a reduction of traffic of 9%
simultaneous with an increase of skier visits of about 9% over the same period. When you have
reliable data, that is easily accessible, you can communicate with the citizenship the actual facts.)
Ms. Dudney:
What is the unifying theme? (Mr. Kulick: The Vision Plan, the unifying topics of the
community. Environmental, societal and sustainability.) Why not just call it the Vision Plan?
(Mr. Grosshuesch: This is the follow up to that plan. The unifying element goes back to the
capacity analysis, where are we going to run out of infrastructure in 20 years? Mr. Truckey: The
Vision Plan was more visionary in nature, the Sustainable Breck Plan is intended to be a series of
actions that implement and sustain the Vision Plan.) It might be a useful exercise to point out
what this is. (Mr. Kulick: Mayor Warner helped identify what sustainability means to our
community.) (Mr. Truckey: There will be a written framework and executive summary for the
7 of 46
Town of Breckenridge
Planning Commission – Regular Meeting
Date 02/01/2011
Page 6
Sustainability Action Plan that will explain its purpose. There will be a document; we will try to
keep it brief rather than longer.) Education is one of the issues that comes up for me that does
not appear to be addressed. (Mr. Truckey: We had many discussions on education, but our
ability to affect that is limited. The Plan does not address every issue. For example, healthy
foods are not addressed. But we think it focuses on the most important components of
sustainability.)
Mr. Burke:
It is about quality of life. What is going to affect our quality of life over the next 20 years?
Ms. Christopher: I think it is commendable that you are working at getting the information out there for the public.
Many people are not educated about this, and it is great you are getting it out there.
TOWN COUNCIL REPORT:
Mr. Burke:
Second reading of the energy conservation amendment passed; good job, after the first reading I
was not sure where it would go. First reading on restriction of residential growing of medical
marijuana was passed. We will be going to second reading next meeting. Breckenridge will be
the first location in the state to restrict how residential growing is regulated. We have to meet the
needs of the neighborhoods. Our goal was not to restrict the people who need medical marijuana.
There are six dispensaries in Town; it is not an availability issue. That has been a real interesting
issue. We are also looking at Carter Park safety. There has been a lot of use, and the Council
wants to make sure the sledding hill is safe; what do we need to do to make it safer? Should
there be lanes to protect people walking up? There were no call ups from Planning Commission.
There was a question raised about the Speakeasy lease. The Council is putting together our top
ten list; the former CMC building and the use of that is one of those top ten, I think. Those will
be items we would like to work on in the next year.
Mr. Allen:
We would like you to bring up to Council on the vendor cart issue. (Mr. Burke: I did bring up
our conversation; however, it seems like there are so many issues. It is something that may need
to come back to Planning Commission.) (Mr. Neubecker: It is on the Council agenda for next
Tuesday.)
Ms. Christopher: Can we be present at those meetings? (Mr. Neubecker: Yes.)
OTHER MATTERS:
Mr. Neubecker: Call our office in the morning for carpooling to the Saving Places conference this week. I have
included recently passed ordinances for you to include with your code book. You might need to
refer to those if something comes up relevant to those ordinances.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 pm.
Rodney Allen, Chair
8 of 46
Planning Commission Staff Report
Project Manager:
Julia Puester, AICP
Date:
February 9, 2011 (For meeting of February 15, 2011)
Subject:
Sundowner One Exterior Remodel (Class C-minor, PC#2011002)
Applicant/Owner:
Jonathan Jones, President, Sundowner HOA
Agent:
Robbie Dixon, Equinox Architecture
Proposal:
Replace all exterior material with cedar siding, add new natural stone veneer to
base of building, new cedar railings with metal pewter balusters, new timber entry
gable features, and four new window locations. A material and color sample
board will be available for review at the meeting.
Address:
445 Four O’Clock Rd.
Legal Description:
Lot 37A, Four Season Subdivision, Filing 2
Site Area:
1.156 acres (50,369 sq. ft.)
Land Use District:
21: Residential 15 Units per acre
Site Conditions:
Sundowner One condos is an existing multifamily two building development (the
Wellington and Tonapah buildings) consisting of a total of 31 units built in the
1970s. The exterior material is vertical cedar. There are a few existing lodge pole
pine and aspen trees on site.
Adjacent Uses:
North: Multi-family residential
South: Multi-family residential
East: Multi-family residential
West: Multi-family residential
Density:
No change
Mass:
No change
Height:
No change
Lot Coverage:
No change
Parking:
No change
Snowstack:
No change
Setbacks:
No change
9 of 46
Landscaping:
No change
Staff Comments
As this application is for an exterior remodel of the building, those Development Code policies that are
not applicable have been left out of this Staff report.
Architectural Compatibility (5/A & 5/R): The proposed exterior materials meet the guidelines of this
Policy. The proposed primary building material is vertical and horizontal cedar siding. The body and
trim colors proposed are earth-tone stained wood siding. A new natural rock base in ‘bear ranch field
stone’ is proposed ranging from 2’-8’ tall around the base of the buildings and on the gable entry feature
bases. Existing deck railings will be replaced with natural stained cedar and new metal pewter balusters.
New windows and sliding balcony doors will be installed in ‘bronze aluminum’ cladding, and new
insulated fiberglass front doors with wood grain. A material and color board will be available at the
meeting for review. Staff has no concerns and is encouraged to see upgrades proposed at this site.
Exterior Lighting (46/A): New exterior lighting will be required to meet the Development Code. Staff
has no concerns.
Point Analysis (Section: 9-1-17-3): Staff finds that this application has met all Absolute Policies and
has incurred no negative or positive points under all Relative Policies. The proposal passes with a score
of zero (0) points.
Staff Decision
The Planning Department has approved the Sundowner One Exterior Remodel (PC#2011002) with the
attached Findings and Conditions.
10 of 46
TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE
Sundowner One Condo Exterior Remodel
445 Four O’Clock Rd.
Lot 37A, Four Season Subdivision, Filing 2
PC#2011002
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has approved this application with the following Findings and
Conditions and recommends the Planning Commission uphold this decision.
FINDINGS
1. The project is in accord with the Development Code and does not propose a prohibited use.
2. The project will not have significant adverse environmental impact or demonstrative negative aesthetic effect.
3. All feasible measures mitigating adverse environmental impacts have been included, and there are no
economically feasible alternatives, which would have less adverse environmental impact.
4. This approval is based on the staff report dated February 9, 2011, and findings made by the Planning
Commission with respect to the project. Your project was approved based on the proposed design of the
project and your acceptance of these terms and conditions imposed.
5. The terms of approval include any representations made by you or your representatives in any writing or plans
submitted to the Town of Breckenridge, and at the hearing on the project held on February 15, 2011 as to the
nature of the project. In addition to Commission minutes, the meetings of the Commission are tape-recorded.
CONDITIONS
1. This permit does not become effective, and the project may not be commenced, unless and until the applicant
accepts the preceding findings and following conditions in writing and transmits the acceptance to the Town
of Breckenridge.
2. If the terms and conditions of the approval are violated, the Town, in addition to criminal and civil judicial
proceedings, may, if appropriate, issue a stop order requiring the cessation of work, revoke this permit,
require removal of any improvements made in reliance upon this permit with costs to constitute a lien on the
property and/or restoration of the property.
3. This permit expires eighteen (18) months from date of issuance, on August 23, 2012, unless a building permit
has been issued and substantial construction pursuant thereto has taken place. In addition, if this permit is not
signed and returned to the Town within 30 days from the permit mailing date, the duration of the permit shall
be 18 months, but without the benefit of any vested property right.
4. The terms and conditions of this permit are in compliance with the statements of the staff and applicant made
on the evidentiary forms and policy analysis forms.
5. Nothing in this permit shall constitute an agreement by the Town of Breckenridge to issue a certificate of
compliance for the project covered by this permit. The determination of whether a certificate of
compliance should be issued for such project shall be made by the Town in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Town Code, including, but not limited to the building code.
6. All hazardous materials used in construction of the improvements authorized by this permit shall be disposed
of properly off site.
11 of 46
7. Each structure which is authorized to be developed pursuant to this permit shall be deemed to be a separate
phase of the development. In order for the vested property rights associated with this permit to be extended
pursuant to Section 9-1-17-11(D) of the Breckenridge Development Code, substantial construction must be
achieved for each structure within the vested right period of this permit.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
8. Applicant shall submit proof of ownership of the project site.
9. Any exposed foundation wall in excess of 12 inches shall be finished (i.e. textured or painted) in accordance
with the Breckenridge Development Code Section 9-1-19-5R.
10. Applicant shall identify all existing trees, which are specified on the site plan to be retained, by erecting
temporary fence barriers around the trees to prevent unnecessary root compaction during construction.
Construction disturbance shall not occur beyond the fence barriers, and dirt and construction materials or
debris shall not be placed on the fencing. The temporary fence barriers are to remain in place until issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy.
11. Existing trees designated on the site plan for preservation which die due to site disturbance and/or
construction activities will be required to be replaced at staff discretion with equivalent new trees, i.e. loss of
a 12 inch diameter tree flagged for retention will be offset with the addition of four 3-inch diameter new trees.
12. Applicant shall submit and obtain approval from the Town of a construction staging plan indicating the
location of all construction material storage, fill and excavation material storage areas, portolet and dumpster
locations, and employee vehicle parking areas. No staging is permitted within public right of way without
Town permission. Any dirt tracked upon the public road shall be the applicant’s responsibility to remove.
Contractor parking within the public right of way is not permitted without the express permission of the
Town, and cars must be moved for snow removal. A project contact person is to be selected and the name
provided to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the building permit.
13. Applicant shall submit and obtain approval from Town staff of a cut sheet detail for all exterior lighting on
the site. All exterior lighting on the site or buildings shall be fully shielded to hide the light source and shall
cast light downward.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
14. Applicant shall revegetate all disturbed areas with a minimum of 2 inches topsoil, seed and mulch.
15. Applicant shall remove leaf clutter, dead branches and dead standing trees from the property, dead branches
on living trees shall be trimmed to a minimum height of six (6) feet and a maximum height of ten (10) feet
above the ground.
16. Applicant shall paint all garage doors, metal flashing, vents, flues, rooftop mechanical equipment, meters, and
utility boxes on the building a flat, dark color or to match the building color.
17. Applicant shall screen all utilities.
18. All exterior lighting on the site or buildings shall be fully shielded to hide the light source and shall cast light
downward.
19. At all times during the course of the work on the development authorized by this permit, the permittee
shall refrain from depositing any dirt, mud, sand, gravel, rubbish, trash, wastepaper, garbage, construction
material, or any other waste material of any kind upon the public street(s) adjacent to the construction site.
Town shall provide oral notification to permittee if Town believes that permittee has violated this
12 of 46
condition. If permittee fails to clean up any material deposited on the street(s) in violation of this condition
within 24 hours of oral notice from Town, permittee agrees that the Town may clean up such material
without further notice and permittee agrees to reimburse the Town for the costs incurred by the Town in
cleaning the streets. Town shall be required to give notice to permittee of a violation of this condition only
once during the term of this permit.
20. The development project approved by this Permit must be constructed in accordance with the plans and
specifications, which were approved by the Town in connection with the Development Permit application.
Any material deviation from the approved plans and specifications without Town approval as a
modification may result in the Town issuing a Stop Work Order and/or not issuing a Certificate of
Occupancy or Compliance for the project, and/or other appropriate legal action under the Town’s
development regulations. A Stop Work Order may not be released until a modification to the permit is
reviewed and approved by the Town. Based upon the magnitude of the modification, another hearing
before the Planning Commission may be required.
21. No Certificate of Compliance will be issued by the Town until: (i) all work done pursuant to this permit is
determined by the Town to be in compliance with the approved plans and specifications for the project, and
all applicable Town codes, ordinances and standards, and (ii) all conditions of approval set forth in the
Development Permit for this project have been properly satisfied. If either of these requirements cannot be
met due to prevailing weather conditions, the Town may issue a Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of
Compliance if the permittee enters into a Cash Deposit Agreement providing that the permittee will deposit
with the Town a cash bond, or other acceptable surety, equal to at least 125% of the estimated cost of
completing any required work or any applicable condition of approval, and establishing the deadline for the
completion of such work or the satisfaction of the condition of approval. The form of the Cash Deposit
Agreement shall be subject to approval of the Town Attorney. “Prevailing weather conditions” generally
means that work can not be done due to excessive snow and/or frozen ground. As a general rule, a cash
bond or other acceptable surety will only be accepted by the Town between November 1 and May 31 of
the following year. The final decision to accept a bond as a guarantee will be made by the Town of
Breckenridge.
22. Applicant shall submit the written statement concerning contractors, subcontractors and material suppliers
required in accordance with Ordinance No. 1, Series 2004.
13 of 46
14 of 46
15 of 46
16 of 46
17 of 46
18 of 46
19 of 46
20 of 46
21 of 46
22 of 46
23 of 46
24 of 46
25 of 46
26 of 46
Memorandum
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Planning Commission
Jennifer Cram, AICP and Matt Thompson, AICP
February 9, 2011
Forest Health Update
Mountain Pine Beetle Program
In April of 2010 the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) Ordinance was updated. The primary
changes to the Ordinance are noted below.
• Require annual removal of dead and infested trees.
• Enforcement of Ordinance on a complaint basis.
• No Class D permit required for approved contractors to remove dead and infested
trees.
Staff held three training sessions for tree removal contractors. All contractors that
participated in the training sessions passed the test. As a result, an approved contractor
list was generated with thirty contractors.
Many dead and infested trees were removed by approved contractors in 2010 with the
streamlined process.
In addition, in 2010 there were eight Class D permits issued to non-approved contractors
or private property owners to remove dead and infested trees.
In 2010, Staff received 58 complaints from property owners that reported that their
neighbors had not removed required dead and infested trees by the July 15th deadline.
Staff sent letters to all 58 property owners. All but one property owner complied with
removing dead and infested trees shortly thereafter and the last property owner submitted
a plan to remove dead and infested trees that was approved by the Community
Development Director.
Staff believes that the current MPB program is working well. We plan to hold contactor
training sessions again this spring to continue to educate tree removal contractors on the
Town’s current policies, programs and goals for forest health.
Defensible Space
In June of 2009 the Town adopted a Mandatory Defensible Space Ordinance. In August
of 2009 the Mandatory Ordinance was repealed and replaced with a Voluntary Defensible
Space Ordinance to be administered by the Red, White and Blue Fire Protection District
27 of 46
(RWB). The Fire Wise Task Force, consisting of one Council member, Town Staff, and
several Breckenridge citizens, was also created.
In 2009 RWB reported that 250 properties had requested voluntary inspections and
subsequently completed creating defensible space around their homes. In 2010 the RWB
reported that 29 additional properties had requested inspections and created defensible
space.
In 2010 staff looked at the subdivisions in Town that should create voluntary defensible
space based on their proximity to Forest Service land and large tracts of Open Space.
Subdivisions within the Historic District, Wellington Neighborhood and Vista
Point/Gibson Heights were not included in the evaluation. Vacant lots were also not
included. Staff estimated that there are approximately 1,674 single family homes that
should create defensible space within Town limits. According to information provided
by RWB, 279 or 16% of the properties have created Voluntary Defensible Space. We
have asked representatives of RWB if they believe that we are accomplishing our goals
through the Voluntary Ordinance.
Public Education is important. In 2009 the subject received significant attention. RWB
and Staff continue to educate the public. The Town’s website is updated regularly. As
noted above, contractor training sessions have been conducted and will continue in the
spring of 2011. RWB and staff also attended several HOA annual meetings in 2009 and
2010, and are planning to continue to do so in 2011.
Fuels Reduction and Fuel Breaks
In January of 2010 the Town of Breckenridge and Summit County Open Space applied
for the Colorado Forest Watershed Restoration Grant, established by the General
Assembly through House Bill 1199, and was selected for a financial assistance matching
grant. The Colorado State Forest Service offered the Town and County $148,259 in state
grant funds to support our project titled “Town of Breckenridge and Summit County
Fuels Reduction and Watershed Protection Project.”
The goal of the 2010 project was to implement fuels reduction and watershed protection
actions on 96 acres of Town of Breckenridge (TOB) and Summit County (County)
owned open space lands (40 acres of County land, 34 acres of TOB land, and 22 acres of
jointly owned land), all located adjacent to vulnerable residential lots and public
infrastructure. The area for this project includes multiple parcels prioritized in a 2008
Town-commissioned study that identified Town-owned open space parcels that were
highly susceptible to mountain pine beetle (MPB) infestation and directly adjacent to
residential areas. The project area is located in and around the TOB, Farmers Korner
subdivision, and the County Commons (County office buildings and hospital). The
targeted parcels that the Town and County have been working on include F&D Placer,
Discovery Hill Tract D, Highlands 3/Summit Estates, Woods Road/Pence Miller, Lomax
Placer, Iowa Hill, Corkscrew, Barney Ford Woods, Moonstone, Blue Danube and the
County Commons (please see attached map). This project involves the removal of all
dead, infested and susceptible lodgepole pine trees in an effort to create fuel breaks
28 of 46
between the more backcountry areas of the Golden Horseshoe and the residential
subdivisions. Management actions will include the removing and disposing of standing
and downed timber in a fire break configuration, piling of some slash for future
prescribed burning by the Red White and Blue Fire Protection District (RWB), and
lopping and scattering where appropriate. Lodgepole pines will be targeted for removal,
while understory spruce, fir, and aspens will be retained.
In January of 2011 The Town of Breckenridge and Summit County applied for a
Colorado Forest Restoration matching grant of $150,000. The goal of this project is to
implement fuels reduction, forest health improvements, fire breaks and watershed
protection on approximately 101 acres of Town of Breckenridge and Summit County
owned open space lands (3.2 acres of County land, 9.5 acres of TOB land, and 88.4 acres
of jointly owned land), located adjacent to residential lots and public infrastructure. The
project area is located in and around the TOB, Summit Cove, and the Golden Horseshoe.
All projects are located upstream of Dillon Reservoir, Denver's primary water source, and
Colorado River headwaters. The Grant funds will be spent to remove targeted trees from
the following TOB and County owned parcels: Dry Gulch-37 acres, Fishhook-3.2 acres,
Corkscrew Flats-7.1 acres, Trappers Glen-2.4 acres, Detroit Placer-29.6 acres, and Rac
Jac Way-21.8 acres, for a total of approximately 101 acres (please see attached map).
Staff and representatives from RWB will be present during the worksession on February
15th to answer any questions.
29 of 46
30 of 46
Note: The Fishhook Parcel is outside of
the scope of this map and is located adjacent to the
Summit Cove subdivision in the Snake River basin.
Summit Estates
Rac Jac Way
Dry Gulch Parcels
Western Sky Ranch
Detroit Placer
Corkscrew
Breckenridge
Trapper's Glen
This map is for display purposes only. Do not use for
legal conveyance. Not necessar ily accur ate by
surveying standar ds and does not comply with
the National Mapping Accur acy Standards.
© 2011 Town of Breckenr idge Open Space Division
2011Breckenridge and Summit County Forest Health Treatments
1:30,000
±
Legend
31Proposed
of 46 Treatments
Planning Commission Staff Report
Project Manager:
Michael Mosher, Planner III
Date:
February 1, 2011 (For meeting of February 15, 2011)
Subject:
The Elk, Mixed Use Building (Class A Preliminary Hearing; PC#2011001)
Applicant/Owner:
Craig Burson (Jeff Palomo is the owner of Lot 79 nest door)
Agent:
Janet Sutterley, J. L. Sutterley, Architect
Proposal:
To construct a 3,015 square foot mixed use building with commercial/retail and
workforce housing uses. The commercial/retail use occurs on the front portion of
the site on three levels (one below grade). The residential, workforce housing, is
below grade at the back portion of the site. There is an attached garage for the
residential use.
Address:
103.5 North Main Street (address recently re-assigned)
Legal Description:
Lot 80, Bartlett and Shock Subdivision
Site Area:
0.085 acres (3,733 sq. ft.)
Land Use District:
19, Commercial at 1:1 FAR and Residential at 20 UPA
Historic District:
#5, Main Street Residential/Commercial Area
Site Conditions:
The property is currently vacant. A cluster of mature trees (spruce and aspen)
exist at the northeast corner of the lot. A paved walkway meanders through the
property connecting the sidewalk at Main Street to the alley to the west. There is
an unpaved parking area at the rear of the property off the alley. A shared access,
snow stacking and parking easement between Lots 79 and 80 exists off the alley
at the back of the property. (See discussion below).
Adjacent Uses:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Density (mixed use):
Allowed under LUGs:
Commercial
2,410 sq. ft.
Residential:
607 sq. ft.
Total density:
2,477sq. ft.
(Note: residential uses have a 1,000 sq. ft. multiplier in this LUD)
Proposed Density
Commercial
2,410 sq. ft.
Residential:
605 sq. ft.
Total density:
2,475 sq. ft.
Springmeyer/SCI Building (Historic)
Main Street and the Breckenridge Towne Square Mall
Gold Pan Saloon (Historic)
Sawmill Station Square parking lot, Schoonover Building
32 of 46
Above Ground Density:
Proposed
1,234 sq. ft. (9 UPA)
1,518 sq. ft.(11.07 UPA)
Mass:
3,017 sq. ft.
1,962 sq. ft.
Square
Footages
Lower Level
Main Level
Upper Level
TOTAL
Allowed under LUGs:
Proposed mass:
Residential
Commercial
605 SF
0 SF
0 SF
605 SF
Total Density
892 SF
1,102 SF
416 SF
2,410 SF
1,497 SF
1,102 SF
416 SF
3,015 SF
Mass
0 SF
1,546 SF
416 SF
1,962 SF
Above Ground
Density
0 SF
1,102 SF
416 SF
1,518 SF
Height:
Recommended:
Proposed:
23’-0” (mean)
22’-3” (mean); 27’-6” (overall)
Lot Coverage:
Building / non-Permeable:
Hard Surface / non-Permeable:
Open Space / Permeable Area:
Parking:
Required:
Proposed:
Per Parking Agreement
Per Parking Agreement
Snowstack:
Required:
Proposed:
Per Parking Agreement
Per Parking Agreement
Setbacks:
Front:
Sides:
Rear:
0 ft.
0 ft., 5 ft.
52 ft.
1,574 sq. ft. (42% of site)
1,798 sq. ft. (46.7% of site)
545 sq. ft. (11.3% of site)
Item History
There is no Town historic cultural survey for this property since the property is currently vacant.
However, the applicant and agent have provided photographs (from the 1940’s) of a historic building on
the lot named the “Elk Hotel”. This structure also appears on Sanborn Maps at the turn of the century
and is identified as a hotel.
This proposal was heard as a worksession on November 2, 2010. At that time, the applicant and agent
were seeking to closely replicate the historic photo of the Elk Hotel building. After that worksession the
proposal was abandoned. This proposal is to replicate the building massing and form from Main Street,
with the proposed east elevation conforming to a commercial/retail appearance rather than the historic
hotel.
Lot 80, Lot 79 and the Town of Breckenridge share a Grant and Dedication of Cross-Parking and Snow
Stacking Easements and Agreement that was recorded in 1991. The property owners (at that time) and
the Town agreed to providing nine shared parking spaces, private snow-stacking easement and a three-
33 of 46
foot windrow snow-stacking easement. According to this document (Hyde and CDC were the original
owners of the properties):
“Breckenridge acknowledges that by the creation of the Combined Parking Areas, consisting of a total
of nine (9) parking spaces, and the granting of easements for snow-stacking, pursuant to this Agreement,
CDC and Hyde have satisfied all parking requirements of the Town of Breckenridge for the Properties,
assuming maximum, full buildout of both properties”.
Essentially, this means that, unless the Agreement is modified, amended, or abandoned, the parking
requirement and layout for both properties, regardless of the building sizes, has “satisfied all parking
requirements” and has identified the associated snow-stacking as shown in the exhibit. Hence, Policies
13, Snow Storage and 18, Parking, are not applicable in this review. The building on Lot 70 (SCI
Building) encroaches into the snow stacking area of this parking/snow stacking agreement.
Staff reviewed this agreement with the Town Attorney and he acknowledges that the parking is shared
and any development on Lot 80 should be allowed the same amount of encroachment (no more) at Lot
79. The current plans show that the SCI building encroaches 66.1 square feet into the easement and the
garage on The Elk encroaches 50.04 square feet.
Additionally, on a separate issue, after this agreement was recorded, the previous property owner of Lot
80 and the property owner of Lots 81 & 82 (the Gold Pan) adjusted their shared property line by
moving it north by about 3-feet. Hence, the parking and easement on Lot 80 is partially over the adjusted
property line onto Lot 81. As a Condition of Approval, the Town is requiring an easement agreement
between these two properties, Lot 80 and Lots 81&82, for this encroachment.
Staff Comments
Land Use (Policies 2/A & 2/R): The lot is in Land Use District (LUD) 19 which suggests commercial
uses with secondary residential uses. The proposed uses are 65% commercial and 35% residential
(employee housing). Staff has no concerns with the proposed uses.
Density/Intensity (3/A & 3/R)/Mass (4/R): Based on the mixed use, The proposal is just under the
allowed density with two square feet remaining. Staff has no concerns.
Architectural Compatibility (5/A & 5/R): This policy addresses general architectural compatibility
and those design standards and policies found within the Handbook of Design Standards for the Historic
and Conservation Districts and those in Design Standards for the Historic District Character Area #5,
Main Street Residential/Commercial.
The Design Standards for the Historic District Character Area #5, Main Street Residential/Commercial
addresses the building types existing at the south end of this Character Area and those at the north end of
this Character Area. The proposed plans are based on the description in the handbook for the south end
of this area. From the handbook:
Character of historic development
“The southern portion of this area originally developed as a part of the commercial core,
from about 1882 to 1917, while the northern half was associated with the North End
Residential Area.”…”The southern end was a mix of one and two story buildings. Due to
the fact buildings were constructed close together, narrow side yards were common.
34 of 46
The southern portion of Main Street
The residential/commercial area developed with a mix of conventional, false-front
commercial-type buildings, a few of which were two stories in height. Residential type
structures were also common. The later were gable roofed and were usually one or oneand-a-half stories in height. The flat-roofed false front usually concealed a large gable
roof over the main structure. Many of these had painted finishes and presented a more
refined image to the street than the buildings farther to the north. Additions typically
were found on the back sides of the main buildings. These usually had shed roofs and
stepped down in scale from the main structure.
Building Setbacks
The placement of the building aligns with both the neighboring historic structures (Priority Policy 191).
In keeping with the character of the southern buildings in this character area, the side yards are narrow.
Additionally, the site plan shows a pedestrian connection and view corridor from the sidewalk on Main
Street to the west (Priority Policy 192).
Parking
All the on-site parking is behind the structure off the alley (Design Standard 193).
Building Scale
As mentioned above, there is photographic evidence of the historic structure that once occupied this
property. During the November 2, 2010 worksession, the Commission gave the applicant direction to
lower the height of the proposed building slightly to meet Code and to provide a better transition of
overall height from the Gold Pan building, at the south, to the Springmeyer/SCI Building, to the north
(Priority Policy 194).
As currently proposed, the above ground density is 1,518 square feet, or 11 UPA. This is over the
suggested 9 UPA (1,234 square feet). As a result, negative twelve (-12) points are incurred.
This overage is allowed with conditions. Most importantly is the module size. This character area
historically had module a range from 730 square feet to 2,650 square feet with and average of 1,400
square feet. To go over the suggested 9 UPA, any module must not exceed the average. The above
ground density of the front portion of the building is 1,195 square feet.
The connector separating the modules is shown with an 8-foot deep recess by 4-foot wide recess on the
southeast elevation and a 2-foot recess at the north at the back of the main building. Staff believes that
the module has been identified by these separations. Does the Commission Concur?
As suggested in this Design Standard, the overall massing has been broken into smaller structures. The
primary building, abutting Main Street, is separated with a one-story connector between the one-story
garage, as an outbuilding, at the back of the lot.
Form and Shape
Priority Policies 196 and 197 address building forms and roof forms. The main building is a simple
gable roof. Dormers are allowed in “limited numbers”. Two dormers are shown. Staff has no concerns.
There is a flat roof area between the main structure and the gable/shed roofed garage at the rear. The flat
roof is lower than both the main building and garage roofs. The view of this flat roof from Main Street is
35 of 46
well hidden from view. It will be partially visible from the alley beyond the roof of the garage. In
elevation this appears fairly visible, but Staff notes that it is still 74-feet off the rear property line, behind
the facades of the Gold Pan and the Springmeyer/SCI Building. Staff believes that this portion of the
building is adequately hidden from public view. Does the Commission concur?
From the handbook:
“…The back sides of these structures are equally important. Their rustic finishes and
"added-on" elements convey a sense of character typical of the service-oriented sides of
many buildings in town.”
•
195. Develop the site as a collection of separate structures to reduce the mass of
individual buildings.
Providing a garage separate from the main structure is preferred.
Consider creating outbuildings to provide additional storage space rather than increasing the
bulk of the main building.
The plans show the garage and entry to the basement unit as an ‘outbuilding’. The entry element of this
structure is lower than the main structure by about 9-feet. It is a simple gable form with a smaller shed
element (the garage) to one side. Staff is supportive of the general form and roof shapes. We welcome
any Commissioner comment.
Building Height
As mentioned above, the proposed building is slightly shorter than the one that was there historically. It
is 1-1 1/2 stories tall and the primary façade has a one-story covered porch breaking up height (Priority
Policy 198). The building is also below the suggested height of 23-feet to the mean.
Façade Width
Per this design standard, a façade width of 25-feet is suggested. The plans show that the primary façade
is 22-feet wide (Priority Policy 199)
Building Materials
The elevations show that the majority of the primary façade of the main building is clad in horizontal lap
siding with a stone base. This stone base is shown at about 2-feet tall on the east elevation. The north
elevation shows substantially more stone covering up to 8-feet tall.
In this Character area the primary building materials were painted wood siding. Priority Policy 200
states “Masonry (brick or stone) may only be considered as an accent.”
Historically, stone was used only for foundations. With past applications, we have asked that residential
style buildings in the Historic District show a foundation no taller than 6-inches. We note, however, that
taller amounts of stone have been allowed in the Commercial Core Character Area. Additionally, this
building is between two historic buildings whose main façade is lap siding with no stone. We suggest
lowering the stone to no taller than 6-inches along all façades.
The primary roofs of the main building and garage appear to be asphaltic shingles. The secondary shed
elements are corrugated metal. Staff has no concerns with the roof materials.
The garage at the back of the development is clad with vertical siding. We have not yet received a color
material board, but we suggest the finish on the garage siding be more rustic. Typically outbuildings
were not as ornate and detailed as the primary building.
36 of 46
Outbuildings
Design Standards encourage the use of secondary structures to break up the massing of a project. The
plans show a garage with an entry for the employee unit at the back of the property. The garage is
secondary in mass and most of the density is below grade (Design Standard 80)
Staff has concerns about the quantity of ornate detail shown on the outbuilding and the sense of
character it exhibits. Typically, historic outbuildings were barns, storage sheds, and outhouses. As
drawn, this structure shares the same amount of detail as the main building: double fascia, full window
trim, and a full porch with turned posts. It appears more like a small house. We suggest changing the
detail to a more rustic and simple character. Does the Commission concur?
Doors and Windows
In this Character Area, both residential character and commercial characters were present. Typical of
historic structures, this building exhibits vertically orientated double hung windows. The drawings also
show that the east elevation, facing Main Street, has classic doors and windows of a commercial
storefront with one exception - see below. Though the original historic building on this lot did not have
this feature, others on the same block did.
The plans show two bay windows on the primary structure. There are bay windows on a historic
residential structure at the north end of this Character Area. Historic commercial buildings did not have
bay windows. Staff believes that this would confuse the interpretation of the Historic District (See
Design Standard 99 in the Handbook of Design Standards for the Historic and Conservation Districts.)
We suggest the bay windows be removed from the proposal. Does the Commission concur?
Ornament and Detail
Design Standard 205 states:
Use ornament and detail with restraint, in keeping with the modest character of the area.
Generally, the drawings comply with this Design Standard, with the exception of the outbuilding at the
back of the property.
Plant Materials
The applicant is proposing to add tree plantings of substantial sizes that abide with the Town’s urban
design plan (Design Standards 206 and 208).
Summary of Applicable Historic Standards with Policy 5
The proposal in general compliance with most of the key Design Standards as they relate to Policy 5/A
and 5/R with possible exception of the flat roof portion of the plan, the building materials (specifically
the stone), the out building design, and the bay windows. We welcome any Commissioner comment.
Building Height (6/A & 6/R): Per this policy, the height of the building is 22’-3” which is less than the
maximum suggested height 23’-0” as measured to the mean of the roof.
Site and Environmental Design (7/R): No criteria from this policy are applicable for this project in the
Historic District.
Ridgeline and Hillside Development (8/R): No criteria from this policy are applicable for this project
in the Historic District.
37 of 46
Placement of Structures (9/A & 9/R): As a mixed use structure there are different setbacks required.
Commercial uses are allowed a zero (0) foot setback. Residential structures should have a relative
setback of: Front Yard - 15-feet; Side Yard - 5-feet; and Rear Yard - 15-feet.
As shown on the drawings, the commercial use has a front yard setback of zero (0) feet, side yards of
zero and 2-feet, and the rear yard is over 74-feet. The residential use is placed in the center of the site
and has side yard setbacks of 5-feet on each side.
The submitted plans currently show the 5-foot dimensions measured to the foundation of the structure.
The Development Code measures to the roof overhang. Staff anticipates that this will be corrected at the
next submittal.
Snow Removal and Storage (13/R): The Grant and Dedication of Cross-Parking and Snow Stacking
Easements and Agreement identified the parking and snow stacking for both Lot 70 and 80. As a result
it is not subject to review under this policy.
Access / Circulation (16/A & 16/R; 17/A & 17/R): Per Policy 16/R: (1) Pedestrian Circulation:
Whenever appropriate to the type and size of the development, the inclusion of a safe, efficient and
convenient pedestrian circulation system is encouraged. The provision of pedestrian circulation areas
adjacent to and at the same level as adjacent sidewalks is strongly encouraged.
The drawings show a mid-block connection between Lots 79 and 80. Staff has discussed the plan and
noted that part of the walkway is on Lot 79. The owner of Lot 79 is supportive of the shared access and
since the applicant is paying for and constructing the walkway (and landscaping), we support awarding
the positive three (+3) points for this application.
Parking (18/A & 18/R): The Grant and Dedication of Cross-Parking and Snow Stacking Easements and
Agreement identified the parking and snow stacking for both Lot 70 and 80. As a result it is not subject
to review under this policy.
Open Space (21/R): Commercial areas are encouraged to provide a minimum of 15% open space or
incur negative points. Open space areas that can be counted must meet this definition:
Landscaping areas, strips, planters, etc., with a minimum dimension in all directions of
five feet (5'), and with a minimum overall size of fifty (50) square feet.
The drawings show that 11.3% of the site area is permeable. But none of these areas qualify as
measurable open space. The point assignment for this policy is negative three (-3) or negative six (-6)
points.
As described above, this site and the neighboring property share access and a drive aisle via a recorded
easement. This area essentially occupies what could have been open space for both properties had the
agreement not been in place.
There are options on this issue:
1. Incur the negative six (-6) points and mitigate to a passing overall score of zero. (Staff’s
preference.)
38 of 46
2. Reduce the footprint of the building and provide the needed open spaces on-site. (The applicant
has elected not to do this.)
3. Incur negative three (-3) points and provide open space when the Riverwalk improvement are
created by the Town.
Option 1 - With the negative twelve (-12) points incurred for the above-ground density, the plans are to
offset these points with employee housing (+10 points) and the mid-block connection (+3 points)
leaving +1 point. If the application incurs negative -6 points for the open space, these could be off-set
with new Policy 33, Energy Conservation by reducing the energy consumption of the building (based on
the 2006 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code) by 40 to 49% and obtain positive five
(+5) points. This would leave a passing score of zero.
Option 2 - The Owner is not interested in reducing the square footage of the building for financial
reasons.
Option 3 - Staff is wary of this option as it may set poor precedent and the timing of the Riverwalk
expansion is unknown. Staff has contacted both property owners regarding the Town’s future plans for
the extension of the Riverwalk improvements down this portion of the alley. Both have agreed to
abandon the non-residential on-site parking, at that time, and then create landscaped improvements at
the back of their developments. Staff has spoken with the Town Attorney about codifying this as a
covenant, running with the land (regardless of who owns the properties in the future), which would
require both properties to abandon the parking (except the required on-site residential) and develop
landscaped improvements at the back of both lots. This area could provide over 40% open space on each
lot.
Based on providing a covenant for future removal of the parking, and subsequent landscaping, the
project could be assigned only negative three (-3) points instead of negative six (-6) points under this
policy. We welcome Commission comment.
Landscaping (22/A & 22/R): The applicant has elected to have this development permit reviewed
under the recently adopted Landscaping Ordinance (Ord. 1, 2011) as this application was submitted
prior to the effective date of January 19, 2011. Staff is working with the applicant and agent to look at a
landscaping plan that could be awarded positive two (+2) points. We will have more detail at the next
hearing.
Social Community / Employee Housing (24/A &24/R): The plans show an employee unit of 605
square feet. This is over 10% of the total density and will be awarded positive ten (+10) points at final
review.
Utilities Infrastructure (26/A & 26/R; 28/A): All needed utilities exist in the Main Street Right of
Way and along the public alley. Staff has no concerns.
Drainage (27/A & 27/R): Site drainage will be reviewed at the next hearing.
Special Areas (37/A): The Special Areas included in this portion of the Development Code refers to the
Riverwalk Corridor. Per this policy:
Blue River: An applicant whose project is adjacent to, or separated by only an alley
from, the Blue River shall comply with the following special conditions:
39 of 46
Several definitions and policy criteria follow, including:
RIVERWALK: The area bounded by French Street on the north, South Park Avenue on
the south, Main Street on the east and the easterly bank of the Blue River on the west
where the town has constructed or intends to construct public improvements in order to
make the area more attractive for use by the residents of, and visitors to the town.
As the lots sit today, both are in the Riverwalk boundaries but neither qualifies for review under this
policy as they are not “adjacent to, or separated by only an alley from, the Blue River”. However, the
Town anticipates that sometime in the future, the Town may undertake Riverwalk improvements behind
these properties that will change this relationship, placing the river behind these properties.
Point Analysis (Section: 9-1-17-3): Staff will have a review of a point analysis at the next meeting.
Staff Recommendation
With this property (and the neighboring lot) sharing a parking/snow stacking agreement, the
development of the property has inherent site restrictions and parking / snow stacking benefits to the
properties.
Overall, we believe the applicant is off to a good start on creating a viable infill project along this
portion of Main Street. We have the following questions for the Commission:
1. Does the Commission support the breakup of the module sizes?
2. Does the Commission believe the one-story flat roof portion of the building is adequately hidden
from public view?
3. Does the Commission support the massing and form (main structure and outbuilding) as shown
on the plans?
4. Does the Commission support Staff’s interpretation on lessening the detail on the outbuilding?
5. Does the Commission believe the bay windows should be removed from the commercial
building?
6. Of the three options Staff has described above regarding open space, does the Commission have
comments on the preferred option?
We welcome any additional comments.
40 of 46
Mr. Allen opened the worksession to public comment.
Turk Montapare, Realtor for the property: I have always been perplexed by a character change in the
middle of this block. Now we have someone trying to make sense of what was historically there and the
code differs. Across the street to the east, we have evidence of a 2½ story façade hotel, which burned
down. I could never understand why the commercial character area did not extend to Wellington Road.
I think we are on the right track with this idea. We’ll never know what the deal was with Cooney’s
(SCI) building’s approval. I always felt that 9 UPA was Draconian. I don’t know where the
documentation came from that we should switch to a residential character in the middle of the block.
Disclaimer: I have both of these lots listed. I think Janet has done a great job.
Peter Grosshuesch, Director of Community Development: Please note that Policy 194 states that new
buildings should be in scale with “existing historic buildings”. It does not say historic buildings that
used to be there. The idea is to support the character of existing buildings. This character area is one of
the smallest in scale, since these buildings were part of the settlement phase of the town’s development.
That is one of the reasons we have such small buildings here.
There was no more public comment and the worksession was closed.
Commissioner Questions / Comments:
Mr. Schroder: There is nothing here to reconstruct. It’s a new building, so the title should be changed.
The area line transitions at the north edge of the Gold Pan.
Final Comments: Shape of the gable helps make the height transition from the Gold Pan
smoother. If there were any “twigs” (historic material) remaining, we’d have something
to work with as restoration or reconstruction. But this is a new building. It looks like
the commercial next door, which looks visually correct to me. We need to fall back on
the code. Support you going ahead as presented, but the negative eighteen (-18) points?
Look forward to seeing the application and having more vitality in this part of Town.
Mr. Wolfe:
Do we know what happened to the original building? (Ms. Sutterley: Sometime before
the ski area opened it was destroyed or torn down.) Are we being asked to waive the
negative eighteen (-18) points? (Mr. Mosher: Yes, but there is no Code provision or
method to waive the points, and the applicant can actually mitigate the points.)
Final Comments: We may be distracted by the photos on the issues before us. The
building shown by Ms. Sutterley seems to be a good transition from the Commercial
Core to the buildings to the north. If we strictly follow the Historic Guidelines, we may
end up with a building that is out of scale along this block. I don’t know how we could
waive negative eighteen (-18) points. Maybe a Development Agreement. Like what is
presented. (Mr. Mosher: The Code allows granting variances, but only to the priority
policies and with hardships.) A variance requires a hardship; we’d need to see what the
hardship. We can’t look at the financial hardship. That is the Town Council’s role
(example was pedicabs). But what’s shown is a good transition from the Gold Pan to
smaller buildings to north.
Final Comments: We like the design, but we are not sure how to make it happen.
Mr. Pringle:
At what point would it be historic preservation or restoration, if they replicate a historic
building? If the Gold Pan burned down tomorrow, could it be rebuilt as it was? Should
we review this as a new building, or replication of a historic building? (Mr.
Grosshuesch: We would review it as new building. There is no provision to waive the
points.) Gold Pan and Sterling Building are different character area; BIC (SCI) building
41 of 46
is a residential character. I don’t know how to meet the Character Area 5 standards
where the surrounding buildings do not follow these guidelines. If we meet the criteria
of 5/A, Architectural Compatibility, it will be the only building on the block to do so.
(Mr. Mosher: We don’t want this development to be fodder for other applications to
propose things that don’t meet the Code.)
Final Comments: I agree with Mr. Wolfe and Ms. Dudney. We want to transition, and
have continuity on the block. That’s more important than 1 or 2 stories. I like the
transition from Gold Pan to BIC. I find it palatable, but Code requires that we look at 9
UPA and 1-story heights.
Ms. Christopher:
Is proposed height same as Gold Pan? (Ms. Sutterley: Yes, and the height is to
Code.) What is separation of this building and the building to north? (Ms. Sutterley: 12
feet separation; 5 feet to property line.) Is the side addition a flat roof? (Ms. Sutterley:
Yes.) I am concerned about leakage.
Final Comments: I like the design. I understand the importance of square footage in the
building. I prefer the 2 stories, but don’t support that it’s as tall as Gold Pan; perhaps
making it a bit shorter would help it transition better. Concerned about public safety for
pedestrians walking through the walkway in winter, when it will be very icy. One story
flat roof on south will need to have snow shoveled off in winter. Don’t see how to
waive the negative points. If density is important, need to find a way to mitigate points.
Mr. Butler:
Final Comments: I’d be supportive of the proposal the way it’s drawn. It is
representational. It’s perfect for the character. The waiver of points, not sure how to
support that. Would like to find a way meet the code or to make a variance happen.
Ms. Dudney: Are we also asking to consider the height issue? “If 2 stories are proposed, they shall be
setback from the front façade…” Is there some way to allow 2 stories without
modifying this policy? (Mr. Mosher: The Nauman Residence found a way to not
require a connector link since the condition was existing. The Commission found that
portion of the Design Standards as “inapplicable”. There has been precedent to state
that certain policies did not apply to a project.) Are there any other historic buildings
that are 2 stories in this district? (Mr. Mosher: Racer’s Edge and one other.) When you
look at vacant lots, do you always have photos showing what was here? (Mr. Mosher:
No.) What precedent does this set to allow buildings at the property line? How many
floodgates would this open? (Mr. Mosher: The historic Sanborn maps show building
locations and rough footprint size, but we don’t have historic photos of all historic
buildings that were here. We don’t want to perpetuate any precedent to all properties.)
By going from 9 UPA to 12 UPA, you increase the building by 400 square feet. Why do
you want to do that? (Ms. Sutterley: 12 UPA is what looks right next to the Gold Pan.
Financially, it needs to be viable. It’s extremely important to my client.) You think you
would have difficulty finding a tenant at 1,300 square feet? (Ms. Sutterley: Yes.)
Final Comments: #4 may be the conflict. I agree with Mr. Wolfe, the transition is
important. The Town does not want reproductions. We want people to know which is
historic and which is new. I’d like to see a 2 story façade work, since it’s
representational of what was there, but I don’t see a way to waive the negative eighteen
(-18) points.
Mr. Allen:
Priority Policy 198 states to be similar size to other historic buildings. (Mr. Mosher:
Absolute polices can get a variance, but not relative policies. Variances need to be very
specific to one unique property. We need to avoid setting a precedent. Sanborn maps
show several outbuildings in the rear of this lot. Should they also be used as precedent?
That is Staff’s chief concern.) Could you explain how the SCI building next door was
allowed to be over density? (Mr. Mosher: Planning Commission denied the project, but
42 of 46
it went De Novo at the Town Council, and was eventually approved by Town Council.
Additionally, the module size was broken up to maintain the average, but was over 12
units per acre. Staff could not find any negative points mentioned in the Findings and
Conditions for the SCI building.)
Final Comments: Historic representation is great. You meet Design Standard 194, but
not Design Standard 198. Need to find a way around policy 198, or maybe find that it is
not applicable. Agree with Ms. Christopher on transition to height; it should step down
to the north. Support the pedestrian connection. Heat the sidewalk if it’s a safety issue.
Agree with others on the negative eighteen (-18) points; maybe Council has ideas on
how to waive that, but we can’t. This project would be a great development in this part
of Town.
43 of 46
44 of 46
45 of 46
46 of 46