Design Review Board - Regular Meeting

I call to order the design review board hearing for the town of Gypsum on September 2nd, 2026 at 4.09 p.m. Meeting minutes approval. Does anyone have any comments? If there are no comments, do I have a motion to approve? All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Abstain.

Aye. Meeting minutes are approved as written. Next on the agenda. Is the post office expansion project located at 100 Oak Ridge Court? James Woolridge will present.

Okay, so brief overview. Don't shoot the messenger. The post office right now is looking at Expanding at their existing facility rather than building a new facility. This is due to budget constraints so in the packet Jeremy wrote a letter to the post office sent to the Vail Daily sent it to you know Parties involved that should see it basically saying like hey, we don't think this is gonna work We need to find an alternative option the town is willing to partner whether or not they take us up on that offer but planning community development agrees Expanding on the existing post office would not serve the community's needs. It's not going to be big enough. It's not going to fit parking. It's not going to fit ADA, all that kind of stuff. What we are here to do today is provide them feedback on their designs. We have a 30-day period to collect community input feedback on the design and then submit that to their post office architect. Because of various laws in the Constitution, which basically says that state can't regulate the Fed, but other way around kind of thing, they don't have to comply with any of our recommendations. It does not appear that they need to submit for a design review board permit or a building permit through the town. Don't know what that is going to look like moving forward, but we are going to take advantage of the opportunity to provide them comments. So with that, let's provide as many comments as we can. Christopher's going to be taking notes. I'm going to be out Thursday, Friday, and Tuesday. I'm getting married on Saturday, so I'll be out with the family. Thank you. But Christopher will be preparing that letter, and he and Lana will be sending that back to the post office architects so that they have that feedback. With that, thank you for not shooting the messenger. I don't know what the best way to go about this is. Should we just go page by page? And then, yeah, page by page? Okay. All right, let's just go page by page. Let's try to whip this out. And all right, so front page, there really isn't much to go over here.

I want to make a couple questions.

I do want to make a couple comments. I don't agree with their occupant load at all. I think they've got eight occupants figured here. If you take the 3,500 and the 1,200 square feet, 150 square feet per occupant, you end up with 31. That unfortunately puts you into a category in the plumbing code where you have to provide public restrooms. So for the record.

Do you know how building code works with the Fed?

I don't. All I can tell you is the IBC, which is what they're referencing as applicable codes, states 150 square feet per person, gross occupancy. You add the two occupancies, you come up with 31.

OK. Got that? All right.

Again IPC International Plumbing Code if you look at that code under 50 or above 25 you have to provide one toilet room per sex. That puts them into two public room toilet rooms. They're not providing any toilet rooms as part of this. packet that I can see they've got two existing in the existing building but it doesn't look like they're accessible to the general public for what it's worth also plumbing code requires you've got two drinking fountains a high and a low again just for reference when we're talking about the codes that are applicable that they reference here so the codes that they say that they are following correct okay The other comment I want to make is when you're talking about classic construction, I believe they've referenced 2B. This is a wood building. 2B doesn't allow any combustible construction. Just a side note. 2B or not 2B.

All right. What class should they be using?

That is up to them. But not 2B. But they're in combustible construction. OK. It should be aligned with the code.

Got it.

And maybe what I can say is we can talk about that offline maybe later. OK, so that's all I had on the cover page. Anybody had anything else?

All good? All right, page two.

Okay, page two. We've got no setbacks here, right?

I don't believe so. I think we have zero setback in the Market District.

That's what I was thinking.

Do they have a dumpster on site?

Right now, I believe they do. I don't know if this plan shows it.

I don't think they do. I drove by there this morning. I've got photographs. They've got all kinds of refuse bins, about six or eight of them along the backside. I did not see any dumpster, just so you know.

Yeah, I'm on page three, everybody. Let's see here. I don't see anything for even refuse bins. Am I missing something?

No, I didn't see it either.

OK. So Christopher put trash, refuse, dumpster, enclosure.

Not sure, but are they required to provide bike racks at all?

We don't have that in the code. It is something I am advocating for, but that is a part of the code that we are not going to get to for a while.

Okay.

I do think it's a good idea, especially in the market district.

Just out of curiosity on the cyclone, why are they going for a separate structure as opposed to attaching it?

Does anybody know? I'm going to assume cost, but I don't know. I just got the plans and not a whole lot else. I would assume cost. There is, I believe, a covered walkway between the two.

I did not see it covered. I was looking for that, and it's on my radar to provide a covered walkway for sure.

I didn't see it. I'm not seeing it either, but I thought I was told in a meeting that they were going to do that. And maybe not. Maybe Lana and I were misunderstanding the plans. We didn't.

Yeah, it's not on the plans that I see. I don't know if you guys see it, but I don't. One of the other things I wanted to comment on are the parking spaces right there with the ADA ramp to the new building. They don't have, in my opinion, they don't have the proper backup space, turning space. And that's right in the pedestrian access point to that building.

Because this area right here where my cursor is, that's a ramp. Correct. So a car is going to straight up back right into this.

Correct.

Okay. Yeah. Vehicular circulation is inadequate and not planned out well.

Well, I would add, I agree, and vehicular circulation at the existing post offices, poor already. So reducing the number of parking spaces is going to make that even poorer.

Agreed a question I have for anyone here Does anyone know if a post office has different parking requirements than any?

other commercial use building I Don't I was gonna ask what is the parking requirements per? the town's ordinances

I think that's gonna depend on whether we classified it as office or retail.

It would also potentially be impertinent if the federal government doesn't have to obey our rules.

Yeah, I think the question is more if it were to obey our rules, what would we do with that?

Right, I think the point is is that how many spaces are they providing?

They're reducing spaces.

So the point should be that they will be under-parked by x number of parking spaces.

And for the record, in the letter that Jeremy sent them, he pointed out that they are already under providing. I don't know if you guys have been there where people are parking not in the parking spots, but like on the side by those bushes. Yeah, I would assume everyone in here has had to park by the bushes, and it's only a matter of time before people are parking in the street, and that's creating impacts with our EMS.

There are times during the week as well as on Saturday mornings when it's open when people are parking on Oak Ridge Court and Parking in the new parking spaces adjacent to the church to be able to go into the post office because there's not adequate parking on-site I mean I'm fine with people parking the official off street parking that is what it's for it is out of the way and it is safe and not impeding traffic or the road I think at some point and especially this winter I

The town has added residents. It's getting bigger. It's going to be an issue. And it's an issue every December, every January. You guys have all been here.

I don't know how relevant this is to this meeting, but Dale has told me that The town of Eagle has run out of space for post office boxes, and the town of Gypsum is now providing post office boxes for residents of the town of Eagle.

Wow, that's a reverse of what it was like, what, three, four years ago? I'd hear about the opposite happening.

So not only are we having more traffic as Gypsum continues to grow, we're having more traffic because people in Eagle now have to come to Gypsum to get their mail. Noted.

OK. What's our required parking space size.

It's big and 10 by 10 by 20 and then you have a certain amount that you can have as compact which I think are eight or nine by 18 18 18. Thank you.

These spaces are noted at 18 by 9 so they don't meet our ordinances then.

Correct.

18 by 9 is typical for residential parking and it's also typical in other on street parking that I've seen for other towns the town of gypsum is 10 by 20 yeah I think I would again this is gonna come from me not being here when those codes were put together but I do think it's because of gypsum is more

rural agri and agricultural nature and more workforce, a lot more pickup trucks, a lot more handy blue collar type workers. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm just saying I think that's why the council went for that route.

Understood and I the existing parking spaces at the post office are not ten by whatever there some of them are barely nine some of them are smaller than a Typical nine foot wide space.

Yeah Yeah, I've definitely seen some cars overhanging who didn't do a bad job parking. I

The other point I want to make is when I drove by there this morning there were four employee or staff cars. So if you had the staff under the public use you've got you just took away four and then there's an abandoned vehicle there looks abandoned it's been there quite a while I don't know window open. So that's five parking spaces allocated to just staff. And I don't know if they're going to be hiring more with the expansion. So.

that's a good that is that is a good question I don't know if they'll be hiring more with the expansion either I know they're very busy back there they have a perpetual now hiring sign in their window so it's always an opportunity for more staff I wonder if they want to add staff or maintain a certain number I mean, certainly having a adequate facility to work in to meet the needs of your job doesn't hinder employee retention.

The last, the northernmost parking space next to the building doesn't work at all. You can't get in and out of there.

No, that's not. Maybe if you have a motorcycle. or like one of those little Fiat's. Does anyone drive those in Gypsum?

The other point is we've seen a vehicle go through the existing building, and I would say they're going to have to add more bollards here or do something, right? Because that is a problem. I was looking at their curb design. I thought maybe non-mountable curb, some sort of design to stop vehicles from popping over that curb. That's a design, a civil engineering design standard that you can incorporate.

Since we're compiling a list of comments, questions, requests, I would add a vehicular turnaround study.

Showing the viability of those parking spaces closer to the proposed new structure They might they might be able to make that work if they instead went with Their lines directly east-west rather than at a angle of

You're still going to lose a spot.

Yeah, you're still going to lose a spot, but it might be somewhat safer, maybe. I don't know.

We're going to get to it, but I'm not thrilled at all about how they're handling the mechanical on this.

Yeah. Yeah. Um, so we're on page three right now. Do we want to move?

Oh, but I see it on page three. They got a little mechanical enclosed, um, attached screened area on that corner of the building. That's the only reason why I'm bringing it up is because it's located on the site plan.

Yeah. All right. Uh, let's go to page four. Okay. Anything here? This is just grating and erosion.

We don't have landscape requirements for them, do we? I mean, the requirements are 10%.

Yeah, and the landscape requirements in Market District are pretty minimal. I mean, we want, obviously, things to look nice and people to consider it. But we're not trying. It's not Ipworth Gateway. It's meant to be more walkable. A lot of your greenery is going to come from parks.

they reference in the top right hand corner yeah they reference latest version of the ups building design standards is that something that we think we should look at just to be familiar with i mean we got to get these comments to them now that way that that would mean some good homework to do

I want to point out page five conflicts with their other site plans with their parking if you guys are looking at What I'm looking at so it is hard to know what they are actually proposing on doing Yeah, I saw that too and then they've got that chain link fence detail that's a big no where where's that bottom corner of the page Oh Where are they putting is that for the mechanical I

I would be my guess.

Perimeter fencing.

Wait, let's see.

That's going to look lovely. Let me see here. New cage around HVAC unit.

Yeah.

OK. I think that is what is, quote unquote, screening HVAC and it could be incorrect about that They're worried about the Bears Okay, well they're gonna have a lot of heat coming out of that duct they might Cozy up to it, huh? It's gonna be the raccoons.

Mm-hmm

All right anything else on this page. You got down that their site plans are conflicting.

Thanks. Just to reinforce what Melanie said no to chain link fencing too. Yeah. Not acceptable for screening mechanical equipment.

On these architectural ones and less functional ones, do something like see market district guidelines, industrial ranch. Perfect. OK.

One other comment I want to make just to discuss any standards for the close proximity of the parking space on the west to the actual exit.

OK.

Typically I don't know if the town has standards but that's always something that we watch right. So I would just say you may want to vet that. Yeah. Correct. So as people are exiting the site you get a car there you got somebody backing up into that area of traffic the motion the vehicle movement typically their standards for minimum distances for parking space to that point.

That would most likely be in our building codes.

this sheet that we're looking at we're talking we were discussing those spaces on the Western property line those are labeled as employee parking so that's taking away from user parking for which there already isn't enough yeah and which plan is correct you know if the

The geometry on these two plans are, between the C plan and the A plan, are wildly different. Agreed. So there's an error in the drawings.

Does this get us a 30-day extension?

Their civil engineer did not coordinate with the architect.

I mean, in fairness to them, that's not the first time we've seen plans like that.

So I think it's very important that when you respond, when they meet with you, that you make sure that they understand that they're going to provide 12 parking spaces. and that whatever code or ordinance applies from our point of view, they should supply X number of spaces. 12 is clearly not enough.

12 spaces for a community that is over 9,000 right now, and if I had money to bet, I would bet it will be over 10,000 in the next five years.

And we don't have mailboxes.

We don't have mailboxes.

So we have to go to the post office.

Jeremy's letter said Gypsum's over 10,000 people, didn't it?

No, just under.

Just under. Just under.

Just under. The census is putting us at a number lower than we believe we are, but we still think we're under 10,000.

So on this note, I personally have walked into the post office in the main entry and seen People lined up all down that first row, all the way down. So it's speed of service. It's all intertwined to how many parking spaces, right? So the faster they get people out. But the point is, it's not like you're picking up a beverage, right? And you're out the door.

And let's be clear. The people working in the post office are doing all that they can.

Oh, yeah.

I think they are limited by their facility with how efficient they can be.

they're absolutely limited by the facility and the number of staff that they have working there and all of that is yes on the post office entity a hundred percent and on that note I guess on efficiency I don't understand my request would be to tie these two buildings together definitely

You know, to come out the back service door, you have to have at least a covered area. But I don't see any reason why they can't connect these two.

No, I support what you're saying. I have a strong feeling they aren't doing that because of cost and time.

And I also think it poses a potential security risk when you've got an open little alley like that.

If this new shed that they're building is just to house post office boxes, the staff is going to have to wheel their carts outside in the wintertime. Through whatever, yeah. Yeah, and that's an alley. And alleyways between buildings create wind corridors and create snow and ice buildup. Yep. Even in gypsum, with as little snow as we get, we still can get snowstorms of up to 20 inches or more at a time. And when we get those Arctic freezes that settle in,

Even if it's not snow that came in, there's still enough moisture that we do get ice, especially in those alleys.

We can have weeks at a time where it doesn't get above freezing. So there could be several weeks where snow and ice or a couple of months where snow and ice is built up between those buildings and create a really treacherous situation for the staff as well as public.

Agreed. That's a good thing to point out. I am also going to point out they have No setbacks, and they are not taking advantage of that. The existing building doesn't take advantage of that, and their proposed new building doesn't take advantage of that. And neither does their any sort of upgrade considered to their parking lot. They might need to do retention wall work out there to make that happen.

It's something something I think that we should point out Do we have any idea if this is just sort of a temporary band-aid to give gypsum a few more post office boxes Or is this what we're gonna get we definitely we we we don't And I would say that this is a poor band-aid

If that is their strategy, I would advise them against it.

If they want to just give us more post office boxes, they could drop a couple of shipping containers on the lot and use that for a couple of years as a Band-Aid until they can come up with something better.

You're not wrong. I don't disagree with that.

Do we know what the numbers are on post office boxes that we're expanding from and to?

Not enough to not enough? No, I don't. We don't know. Yeah. That would be a good thing to request.

The other question I think I'd ask them is what do they How long do they project this addition will make this whole post office last? Compared to the projected population growth of gypsum, do we have data on that?

They haven't provided us any data on how many people they expect this post office to be able to serve. And I think going back on what Michael pointed out earlier is this post office, and I think this valley is notorious for this, but this post office doesn't just serve the town of Gibson. It serves Dot Zero. It serves Eagle. It serves those that count. I mean, just like every other post office in this valley.

Is that also Colorado River Road and Sweetwater?

I don't know how big of a footprint this post office serves, but I do know from just living in the valley and having friends in the valley, you get a PO box where you can or where it's convenient. That might not be where you live. It might be the town you work.

I have friends that live in Gypsum that work in Eagle, and they have an Eagle post office. Yep.

My fiancee, when she moved out here, there was no room at the Gypsum post office. She lived in Gypsum, but she had to get a post office box in Eagle. She also worked in Gypsum.

Another concern of mine is if they move forward with this, It's kind of that philosophy or mentality that it's there, and we're going to get it for the next 40 years, guys. Exactly. This was the lands. That's what you get.

Exactly. I agree. A general question that I have about the existing building. That land is privately owned. The post office leases the land. Did the post office build that original building, or was that?

That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that. I don't think so, but I do not know.

I was just curious if that building was constructed for the post office or by the post office, and if it was constructed as a post office from the beginning, or if it was some other kind of building that was taken over by the post office and then retrofitted.

Yeah, no, I think that's a good question. But we brought up to our attorneys, hey, this building's leased. post office could walk away from it tomorrow, and then we'd have a bigger, even more nonconforming building. It still doesn't apply. They can still choose to listen to us or ignore us. So as many comments on their design, their building, their function, anything that can help them look more like they fit into the market district, but also serve the community's needs and keep our residents safe. I do think that this parking lot is not super safe. I think a lot of gypsum residents have actually done a really good job in this parking lot of taking care of one another and trying to be safe. That being said, it's only a matter of time because it's not. It's a, when, especially in November and December and January, when all those packages are coming through, I don't believe this is safe. I think it only functions safely because chips and residents feel like, I don't know, they're all in it together and they get stuck. And they drive, they actually drive slow. So.

The other thing they don't show here is like, you know, trucks back up to that loading dock. Yep. And trucks park there.

DAVE SHIRAZIERI- Daily, multiple times a day. And not only USPS trucks, but UPS has some sort of a contract where they will deliver packages to the post office that are supposed to go to a street address that get delivered to people's post office boxes. So there's delivery vehicles. I'm sorry to interrupt you, James, but you're right. There are post office vehicles, and there are local people that I believe are contracted with the post office as drivers. So there's a lot of delivery traffic going in and out. in addition to staff employee traffic and customer user traffic.

In addition to trash traffic that they have not shown where they're putting their trash.

Right. So that truck sticking out to the south of that dock blocks anybody who's parked in the 12 parking spaces that there are, is blocking the entrance to this building expansion. And it's not a building expansion. They're not touching. So it's a separate building.

It's a new building.

In addition to the issue with vehicular circulation and parking, The drive is intended to be one way with the entrance on the east side and the exit on the southwest side. Several times a year I see people that either are new here or just decide that they don't want to pay attention to the signs and they drive through the other way. And it really screws traffic up.

Agreed. Vehicular circulation is problematic from the start And I think this just aggravates pedestrian Circulation as well This I would agree that there are no paths or sidewalks that go from the public sidewalk through the property to their walkway you have to cross a truck dock Or you just have to cross the parking lot. There's no path. There's no marked area for anyone to walk. Like if I was going to walk from Oak Ridge Drive or from Oak Ridge Court. Yeah.

So Christopher, I just want to make sure that you When you meet with them, you'll be able to ask the questions about?

So he's not going to be able to. I don't know if he's going to be meeting with them or if they will arrange a meeting. What we're doing is providing them a letter. So that is what the request entails or their documentation. Yeah.

OK. So in the letter, though, that we could reflect on, The statistics in terms of what they propose to be able to serve with this expansion and how that compares to the estimated growth of the town.

Yeah. And I think that is something that Jeremy and we staff are pushing back on them. I do want to say, like, remind everyone, like, we are the design review board right now. Like, what sort of design characteristics do we have to critique them on to make this potentially function better? I still agree that no matter how we, you know, skin this cat, it's not going to meet the community's needs.

That was a fundamental question in my mind about what are we doing in this meeting today because it seems like

We're trying to provide them any sort of architectural design or site plan feedback that we can.

Jeremy's letter, I think, does a good job of addressing the inadequacy of meeting our town's needs for a new post office. Yeah. We can make all the comments we can, and hopefully they are received and addressed.

Yeah. So if we have any other sort of... Something I just noticed, they haven't submitted any colors, any material board type things. So what sort of materials would you like to see? I'm going to say it's post office, so they're probably going to go with that blue-gray combo.

Just to back up just a second, James, the elevation shown on 4.2, A4.2, Do not show the existing building in relation to the new building.

Yeah. Agreed. I was going to note that as well.

I'd like to see how these buildings relate to each other and that this is an inadequate set of drawings.

Agreed.

That you can't tell how this design relates to the existing design and how it relates to the truck dock that it's right next to.

Should we stay on the elevation page? I did. OK. I'm good with that. Should we move to it?

Yeah, yeah. I got pulled up here, I think. Yeah, A4.2.

So basically this building, if you look at this building, fits exactly into the pages in our design guidelines of what we don't want. If you look at those pictures, this fits perfectly in what the town would not approve.

OK. So elaborate on that. How do we put that in writing to the post office? Because I think you're on the money. To me, right now, this looks like a building that would fit more in our light industrial areas.

This looks like a building that belongs in figure B of our design guidelines. OK, figure B is not acceptable building types, materials, lighting, amenities, landscaping, and railings continued. I'm just reading from what we published. And if you look at the pictures, this stucco building is too plain. This wood building is too plain.

Has anyone found any material notes?

It says to match existing is all of the notes that I read. It's siding to match existing, roofing to match existing, siding color to match existing. So I'm on elevation notes.

But to James's point, this looks like a metal building. Are they going to paint it red to look like brick?

They're going to paint it the same brown as the existing post office. Isn't that just a plywood siding on there?

It looks like an OSB almost. Or a T111. T111 is what I'm thinking. Sorry, T111.

Yeah, I was going to say T111.

Yeah, it's a plywood siding.

But I'm with you. I think they have to. My suggestion or recommendation would be if you're going to be looking at wood siding, it has to be more ranching in terms of its finish. Maybe a little distressed. Something that follows this hitching post example. Not a solid stain, but maybe a weathered wood exterior.

Variable kind of stain.

Model. Yep.

I'm going to say the existing building needs a lot of maintenance. And I don't think it's... unreasonable to request that the existing building be resided and the siding on this proposed building if this if it stays in this configuration have an updated siding and siding detail and trim detail so that it all matches the existing siding the existing trim is all deteriorated it has hardly ever been painted or stained or maintained or cleaned and I've lived in gypsum for 20 years and I don't know when the last time I saw that building I mean, that brick could use a power wash. At the very least, if this new structure was going to match the existing, they could put a brick base around this new building to match the same height of the existing building. At least it would make the two buildings look more coherent. Right now, this building does not have any resemblance to the existing one in its size and its roof form and its siding. All they're saying is it's going to match the same materials and same color, but that doesn't go far enough.

And I don't know how they're going to match it. I mean, this looks like, this doesn't look like a brick building.

I'm still in favor of not repeating the siting that they have, period. I think we disagree on even adding the brick, because I would vote for do some reclaimed siting. Put your money there. I was thinking we definitely need more fenestration on this. They've got two windows. On the one side of the building, you've got the lockers go up to six feet. You've got a bearing height of 10. I'm all in favor of adding more fenestration, kind of a clear story, on the front wall. I also thought about changing the pitch on this entry framing so that it is a shed roof that's at a different pitch, guys, and it goes across the facade itself so you just don't have this tiny little you know, entry point.

Is that better for snow, though? So instead of falling front, it falls to the side?

She was saying that it would be like a shed roof that would cover that sidewalk.

Yeah, the whole sidewalk, all the way across, right? With more columns, heavier timbers, right? Let's up the scale of the columns. They're six inch now. Let's go up to minimum.

Yeah, so you're advocating for... Ignore the architecture of the current building, because that's not industrial ranch. Build this one as industrial ranch. Correct. And hey, if you can, look at that other building and make it industrial ranchy.

Well.

I think we should, as a board, staff agree on one direction for comments and I think there's two directions on the table right now Melanie's proposing make the new building for the proposed building comply more with the town's guidelines as much as possible with better siding and detailing and a possible revised roof And I'm in favor of all of those suggestions. My suggestion is only to make the two buildings look as identical as possible with materials and colors. And if that means adding brick siding to the proposed building, that's one way to do it. Another way to do it is if we don't want brick siding and the existing building gets a renovation, pull the brick off the existing building. all need to be there except for the vestibule that was rebuilt. That was actually I think a brick wall below the storefront windows. So that brick might have to stay there. But I think some of the other brick might just be a veneer.

Yeah, I think it's just a veneer Is that the rebuild yeah today's photo yeah, so I

I don't know. I'm of the opinion that we don't repeat bad architecture. So it's kind of that slippery slope between.

Well, I agree. That's why I'm suggesting reskin the existing building.

Yeah. I love that idea. I think you summed it up perfectly. I'm with you on that. I agree.

Then Christopher I would summarize the notes of this topic to possibly renovate the exterior of the existing building and make the new building and the existing building as cohesive in material and color as possible.

Can I add on to that and say make them one building.

I support that.

Thanks. That was a comment you guys are making earlier.

I just felt like it kind of tacked on to what you're saying here I was running with the assumption that that's not going to happen, but the problem around with the assumption none of this is gonna happen Sorry, I'm under the assumption that we're trying to torpedo this project So that we do that and with the tap working with the town they do something different Completely.

Yes. I I don't know I doubt that We are able to do that, but hopefully they see the light and, like, this will be a waste of money in three years just because this won't – this is fully my opinion as a planner. This will be a waste of money in three years because this will not meet the community needs, and they'll be stuck doing this again and trying to figure something else out.

I totally agree. I agree.

You know, where they get the money to – do something that would meet the community needs beyond three to five years. I don't know. I don't work for the post office, so that's not my job.

This is just a question for just a quick, put me in my place here. Are we all comfortable with just a single leaf door going in and out of there? I mean, how often, I hold the door open for somebody almost every time I go to the post office.

Same. We're so nice.

And I'm just wondering if a double leaf door would be better. Am I just?

I don't know that a double leaf door would be better, but I could see a separate entrance and exit door.

I like that idea.

But then you're going to run into a situation where nobody's going to pay attention to it.

Hey, we're building community by holding the door for one another.

Well, the side door is three foot six. I don't know if you noticed that. It is a little wider, and that would be for staff, my guess is, coming in and out of that door with carts, right?

It's noted as a staff entrance only.

Oh, it is? Yeah.

Well, hey, they're not going to need to do that because they're just going to build one building for us. One big building.

Yeah. I would agree.

Yeah. But no, the door is a good question. When I look through these plans, this says to me we are trying to fall on a budget.

Yeah.

Mm-hmm.

To reinforce what Melanie said earlier about additional fenestration, I think more windows on the south elevation adjacent to the public front door would be very beneficial.

Yeah, and if those areas, I do believe they're lined with PO boxes, but if they were to put you, yeah, but if they were to have windows above the PO boxes, because you said the PO boxes go up six feet, but what was the?

Bearing height is 10.

Bearing height is 10, so you have four feet.

But there's a drop ceiling below the truss. Do you?

Does it show how big that drop ceiling is? But you could still get windows above the... Because they have that in the existing post office, right? Where they have windows above the... The ceiling's at eight feet.

Right. So the underside of the truss is 10. And they can run their mechanical... Through those trusses.

They're dropping a ceiling and running the mechanical below the trusses.

I know. What I'm saying is a recommendation.

I agree.

To help with the window situation, right? Because it's also a safety thing, guys. Just natural daylight when you're cutting down these cubbies.

Well, that does get into a daylight issue with... occupancy use and square footage running the mechanical in the truss space gets challenging because of insulation issues so whenever they can they're gonna run mechanical ductwork below the insulation so that it's fully enclosed in a conditioned space if we can get

Whatever mechanical way they do it, if we can get increased windows above their PO boxes, I think we would be more satisfied than what they have now.

Yes, I agree with all that. They can do an 18-inch window above the post office box banks that are six feet tall. They still have two feet between the ceiling and the top of the boxes, and they can put an 18-inch window in there and still get adequate trim around it. Oh, yeah.

Can you go to the mechanical duct layout?

Which page is that?

Sorry. That happens to be M1.0. My thoughts are none of these supplies are up against the wall, right? So we have opportunity to carve back or window well, light well, a couple feet in, maybe beyond the lockers. Do you know what I'm saying? Because they're not dropping the supplies at the doors, which is like,

You know, it's nice to try to make a bad design better, but it's a bad design. Do I add that to my notes? Here's what's going through my mind right now. I don't even feel safe going in here at night. I mean, this building is an isolated building. It's not part of the main post office. No one can see in it. The police can't see in it. I don't know what kind of things could possibly happen. Have we ever had any crime in that existing post office?

Not to my knowledge, but I have not looked into that.

Do you feel safe going in here at night back into the back of that and finding some stranger? How are you feeling about this?

I actually was looking at the exit and remoteness requirements. And of course, they're not above 50 occupants, so you don't need that second door. But yeah, I thought about it right out of the gate. You walk into that last bay, 11 o'clock at night, because the doors are always open, right?

Yeah, there's only, what, two lights back there in those back bays?

Two little? It did cross my mind, and I'm with you on that.

I don't even feel like it's safe.

Has anyone seen any sort of security cameras noted in their electrical, mechanical, any of that?

I know. I saw it. That's what I'm saying. Actually, this is such a disservice to our community all the way around, guys. It's such a disservice.

Absolutely. The post office is something that every resident in this community uses.

I mean, it's something every resident uses, and it's something more and more of our residents are using as we have more and more retirees here. There are certain medications that will, to my knowledge, almost only ship through USPS.

Medicare that's a good point perhaps it could be a compelling point that even if they're trying to be you know conservative with their budget that we're not necessarily imposing expensive materials or layouts that with what they're proposing a redesign could just be more efficient that they wouldn't have to necessarily increase their resources to make this work but they just like like James pointed out that you know making the best of a poor design you know I would I would advocate that

Them to come to our community, especially in the months of December.

Yes. December and January.

Yeah, but December, January.

Oh, December, from the end of November after Thanksgiving through December to see the kind of traffic that goes through there for the holiday traffic.

And to see what their employees are dealing with.

Yeah. There's something else that... should be somehow brought to their attention as architects. This is a community space. We have lines. The line right now, we all know, goes from the door in all the way back, sometimes all the way to that back set of mailboxes, right? So there's 25 people standing in line. And you know why Eagle's post office is better than Gypsum's? Because the line there goes around a table and we can all see each other and we all know who's there. Hey, Mike, how's it going? It's a community space, and this totally turns us back on it, because we have to go to the post office to get our mail. If you live in other communities where they deliver mail to the post office, you don't have to go there. They should respect that this is a community space, and they don't.

I see what you're saying, where the internal layout is not designed in a communal manner.

They should take that to heart. We see people there we know. We talk to people there we know. Somebody ought to be serving coffee, for crying out loud. But you don't have to put that in the notes. But it's just such a bad design.

Hey, you can put hot dog roller in the notes.

And I got to go inside to get my mail. Then I got to come back outside and go back inside to get my package. I mean, I got to go in, I got to go out, I got to go back in, get my package, and then back out.

I mean, how many times have all of us held the door or had the door held for us as we go in and out holding packages above our heads? Well, I'm short, so maybe not some of you guys. But packages above our heads as we're going to our cars and then rushing back in as other people are trying to shuffle in and out of that little atrium. Yeah, the existing facility is a bad design. The new facility is not increasing the service in the way we need.

Do we know, sorry, this is loud sometimes, do we know if it's the same architect that was designing the proposed new post office as this design or the different team?

No, so I believe the story there is that the tower center team created the design for the post office.

And do we know if in that proposal they followed our guidelines?

They wasn't in the market district.

Right, yeah, straight zoning and then the building.

Well, it was PUD, or tower center PUD. So they went with what they wanted to see in the tower center because that's more privately managed. And it looked nice for the record. I thought the tower center's design looked cool.

So one of the other things I wanted to bring up is if you look at their proposed plan, they're removing a tremendous amount of existing boxes. So what is the delta? What are we really gaining?

Ooh.

Right? That's a good question.

What are we gaining?

What are we gaining? How many?

And is that enough?

Exactly. If you're going to do it.

That's part of the statistics we still want to know. You know, there's another thought here. I'm just talking out loud because we're just a design review board. We're at the lowest ranks here in town, right?

Still above staff.

If they tore that entire building down and moved it back where there's more room to the south, because there's room to move it north, right? Yeah.

Potentially. I haven't looked into their site plan to see if there are easements there.

You could build a building that opens up to the south, that has enough glass so people can see in, people can see out, a much safer condition, and still have a post office where people can line up and go to a counter and get their stuff. We've all been to way more beautiful post offices than this. This is like a hovel.

Well, I don't know if this building was designed. I agree. I don't know if this building was designed as a post office. That being said, would you say that your recommendation is work with if no other site can be acquired or this site cannot be expanded, work with the town to properly expand this building? Because I'll go. I'll go tear this building down myself if someone else will build it. I can't build things. I can tear them down.

I'm sure volunteers would lower their cost.

Yeah, no, there is a solid 10 feet on the north right.

regarding the demo plan I'm unclear as to like what the extent of the demo is and what the extent of the renovation in the existing buildings gonna be yeah I'm not looking for explanation right now but I'm just want to make a comment that the plans are not a hundred percent not very clear it looks like it's a composite of a reflected ceiling lighting plan and demo plan of

existing peel boxes Yeah that I Agree, I'm not sure about it does seem where they are building the new building there is not much There isn't anything there, but they're Delta a I'm sorry. C. Do you know which PDF page it is? Sorry.

19.

Thanks. I was way off.

Okay. Is that it?

I don't think so.

No. No, I think it's eight. Eight. Eight on mine. Yep.

Mine's 1938.

I'm looking at just the documents or the drawings. Okay.

I see what you're looking at here.

Yeah, page seven in your PDF, I think, James.

Yeah. Oh, seven, sorry.

Yeah, look at one demo, 182.1 demolition plan.

Okay.

That is a confusing plan to me.

Wait, so this is the new building.

Well, and it doesn't show how they're going to remodel that area. Exactly. It shows some sense of demo, but we don't get a plan of what it's going to be replaced with.

Right.

Look at a 3.0, Michael.

Is that the next page?

There's a reflected ceiling plan there. Yeah, but that's a loss One other item

If you look at 8.2.1, they're calling for an ADA paddle for a door operator, and it's on the hinge side of the door. They might want to study the ADA code.

So you're saying the federal government should study the federal government's rules?

Well, it's actually, yes, it's a federal mandate. So anyway, the operator's on the wrong side of the door.

Wait, so that would be then the person pushing it to get crushed by the door.

That's right. You hit the door operator and the door swings into you. That's not good.

Right?

And then you get hit by the column because you can't move out of the way the door swings. What sheet is that on? A2.1. Note number nine.

I made note of that specifically.

Thank you. Fence height, does that meet code, design standards?

Well, it's not clear to me where that fence is going. I do think that is going around the mechanical equipment that The fence height, I believe, meets the guidelines. The material does not. But I don't know where that fence is going. So beyond that, I can't comment. Because if it's going on the property line, that would be things, to a certain extent, in the back and the sides, but not the front. Because the front is supposed to be only a 3 and 1 half foot fence.

Right. But if you look at A6.0 and you just go by eye, We know the ceiling's at 8 feet. Look at the height of that fence, the way they're showing it.

Yeah.

Yeah, but you've got to go back to 381.0 to see the fence details. Odd.

OK.

Do you want a motion?

I think we should have a motion. I think the appropriate motion is to take all of the comments given by the GRB and for Christopher to integrate those into a letter.

Is that something we want to summarize?

That's not the motion I was thinking of.

Oh. Oh, boy. I mean, you are the appointed body.

If you want I would I Would make a motion that we reject the post offices proposed Plans plans to add a second building To the postal site that the design does not meet the our design guidelines. It represents poor planning. The site is inadequate. And it will not serve the town for a reasonable future, nor does it give us the kind of institutional building that a post office can represent.

I might add that I'm not sure if this were to appear tomorrow, I'm not sure it would meet the town's needs today.

So that would be my motion to this board.

That's up to you guys.

To clarify and simplify James' suggestion, the proposed, we would

Is the term reject?

I like reject.

It's so strong. So are you proposing that the motion be we reject their proposal, we have provided these comments as to why we are rejecting their proposal, and recommend that they work with staff to come up with a better solution, be that A facility at a different location, a complete redesign of this facility, some sort of expansion, who knows, but something that would not only meet the architectural guidelines, but meet the community's needs for a post office.

And then come back to the design review board.

And then come back to the design review board.

One comment just as a thought for consideration. If a completely new building structure and facility were to be erected, constructed, have to be done in a way that the existing facility stays functional until the new facility would be completed. Because the post office, it's not like a residence where someone could move out and come back in six months.

No, it's more like a highway where you need a bypass lane. go down to one lane each way, and then you open up the other one, and then you switch back and forth, and yada, yada.

It's just a thought for consideration. What is the reality that the post office is going to find a new property to lease and build a brand new facility? I don't know, but I would expect that probability is very low. So they're going to have to improve and expand upon what we have. And I think the way they're looking at it is they want to probably spend as little as possible and do as little disruption as possible while the new facility is being built.

And I think they want to do it as quickly as possible.

And as quickly as possible. That's just pure speculation, but that doesn't need to go into a motion.

No, I agree with you. I do think that there is a way, if you were to completely redo this site, I think there's a way to build on to where the current building isn't, get that part functioning enough, and then build on your second part where the current building is. I do think that there's a logistical way to do that, but it would take some planning, designing, operations, some flexibility. There would be not the greatest, you know, service during that time period, but there would also be much better service once both halves were built. And I would like to think that that would be something that the community would, a hiccup, a shot of some tough love that the community would be like all for to get a better post office. And the town does own the property, the park, that is kind of behind ish to the post office. So there are ways to partner. There are ways to get things done.

What is that land behind west of the post office?

So immediately west of the post office that is privately owned Does a little sliver where that Creek is to the north and then that goes into that like open field That is it's just a park

Has the town proposed a site, a replacement site to the post office?

Yeah, the proposed replacement site was, you know, the tower center, that construction that's going right on the road on Highway 6. So on the corner of where Jules Drive, not Jules Drive, sorry, Sunny Avenue used to be, and that going into the apartments right on the eastern side of that is where that post office would have gone. They said they didn't have the money.

And they know that this site's been offered.

Oh, yeah. The story, as I remember it, is they were working with the tower center team to design the building, offered them the property. The phase one final plot went through. The property got made into its own thing so you could build on it. And the tower center team sent them the lease, and then they heard crickets. That's my understanding.

trying to formulate a concise motion. We're looking at rejecting this proposal on the grounds of the design does not meet the town of Gypsum's design guidelines. Per the comments delivered. Refer to Christopher's comments. The design does not function properly and has major flaws in the intended function and we recommend that the U.S. Postal Service confer with Town of Gypsum staff to discuss the town's current and future needs. And any sort of alternative option.

The only thing I'd like to add in there is let's make sure we know that there are, you know, life safety issues in terms of the site. Yeah. You know, pedestrian path of travel. So let's make sure we get in flagged life safety issues.

Yeah. Christopher, make sure to really put an emphasis on those.

Yeah. So we're looking at design. Function would include life safety, traffic, as well as pedestrian or user use of the facility. Internal safety as well. Internal safety. Internal safety, traffic, internal and external safety, traffic, and overall functionality and use.

In the US, the powers that be for the USPS, which don't work here, they are aware that most people do not have mailboxes, that there's no delivery of our mail.

I would like to think they do.

Christopher will make sure they know.

Christopher, make sure they know.

Go online and send them a note. Everybody, go online and send a note to the President of the United States saying, hey, there's some bad stuff coming out of the, what branch is he? He's the... Postmaster General? No, no, but the Postmaster falls under...

I don't think it technically falls under the executive branch.

It does fall under the executive. Well, that's what I read, which is why I wrote it. Okay.

Well, and I've seen Trump's plane at the airport, so it's not a very far walk once he lands.

The other thing to note is be sure to write your congresspeople and senators. Okay.

Okay.

Okay. I make a motion to reject the proposal as presented under the following reasons one the design does not meet the town of gypsum design guidelines for overall massing form materials in color to the building does not function in regards to life safety both internal and external there are conflicts with pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic And there are serious shortcomings in the function of the building regarding use as a post office by patrons. And we, number three, the design review board Requests that the applicant refer to the town of gypsum staff to discuss the town's current and future needs the existing post office does not meet our current needs and we feel that the proposed addition Will still not meet our current needs Second All those in favor Any opposed the motion carries Hey, thanks for not shooting the messenger James are there any other items on the agenda?

No, not right now. I need to go. I need to head home. I have a meeting for the wedding right after this, meeting with the bartender. But brief updates, trying to finish up the Market District and Airport Gateway design review board update for this year. And hopefully, I won't need to update it next year. But trying to get that finished up with Christopher and get that in front of you guys and then planning commission. I might do, I might figure out the most efficient way to do that and just have you guys give me online comments again and then just bring it before the planning commission at the next meeting just so I can get that done and feel like I did something awesome.

So, Christopher, do you have anything? I do not.

OK. Chopin, Jesse? OK.

Thank you move to adjourn.

Yes, please.

I make a motion to adjourn I'll second that aye All those in favor any opposed meeting is adjourned at 529 p.m. I