HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 6-14-17n
Xv
Minturn'
Official Minutes
MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION
Minturn Town Center, 302 Pine Street
Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645
Wednesday June 14, 2017
Regular Session — 6:30 pm
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
CHAIR— Lynn Teach
Greg Gastineau
Jeff Armistead
Burke Harrington
Planning Director - Janet Hawkinson
Clerk — Jenny Lowe
These minutes are formally submitted to the Town of Minturn Planning Commission for approval as the official
written record of the proceedings at the identified Meeting. Additionally, all Planning Commission meetings are
tape-recorded and are available to the public for listening at the Town Center Offices from 8:30am — 2:00 pm,
Monday through Friday, by contacting the Planning Office at 970/827-5645 302 Pine St. Minturn, CO 81645.
Regular Session — 6:30 Inn
1. Call to Order
Chair L. Teach called the meeting to order at 6:50pm
• Roll Call
Those present included Chair Lynn Teach, Jeff Armistead, Greg Gastineau and Burke
Harrington.
e Pledge of Allegiance
2. Approval of Agenda
C Items to be Pulled or Added
Motion by Greg G., second by Jeff A., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4-0.
3. Approval of Minutes
• May 24, 2017
Motion by Jeff A., second by Greg G., to approve the minutes of May 24, 2017 as presented.
Motion passed 4-0.
4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5 -minute time limit per
person)
5. Action Item: Conditional Use Permit — Town of Mintutn Lease Lot
Janet H. presented the CUP and showed images of the area, zoning and the lots. The lease lot
was proposed by the Planning Commission 2 years ago as a means to utilize town land that is
storing junk material for light industrial lease lot. It could potentially move businesses from the
Railroad property at the entrance to town —up to the lot which is screened with berms. The
potential fee generation if all lots are leased can be from $8,000-10,000 a month to the Town,
helping fund capital improvement projects and local businesses.
Janet H — the CUP would allow the town to manage the lot, the uses as they pertain to the zoning
codes for the area and the CUP. Without this CUP, each individual lease applicant would need
to apply for a separate CUP through the town. This CUP will enable the town to lease the lot
efficiently.
Janet H. introduced the. applicant: Jay Brunvand, Town treasurer, who described the usage of the
lots currently and the importance of being a "simple" process, for businesses to lease them. By
having a Conditional use permit, it makes it easier for the Town to manage rentals as well.
The objective of it is that applicants don't need to go thru a CUP process that can take months.
Jay B. explained the use of it is limited per zoning and based on the size of the lots. The leases
are limited by the State to have a length of just 12 months, so it is restricted to an annual lease,
which will be approved by Council. There are minimum utilities for electricity and water. The
price per site is set at $750-900 a month depending on square footage.
No animals are allowed on the property.
Greg G. asked if there is or will be any lighting in that area. The answer was there will not be
any, so it won't affect the neighbors.
Planning commission approved the Conditional Use Permit for the Lease lot of Town, first by
Jeff A., second by Greg G. Motion passed 4-0.
Janet H. requested a recess at 7:15pm
Meeting back to order at 7:20pm.
6. Action Item: Variance: 412 Taylor Street
Janet H. clarified that the Planning Director per chapter section 16-1-50 in the code, shall be
responsible for interpreting and give a recommendation for a variance. Ms. Hawkinson read out
loud the definition of a "Variance". Janet H. went through the code in the packet for a variance
and the criteria the Planning Commission needs to use to approve/deny the variance. Per code
criteria, it is the recommendation of the Planning Director to approve the variance for the second
story deck in the backyard. The variance meets the code requirements.
Janet H. introduced Mr. Craig Congdon, owner of the property and his architect, John G. Martin.
Mr. Martin described the purpose of having a variance, given that Ivlr. Congdon can't expand his
property, due to it being a duplex with all existing decks and impervious surface on Congdon's
lot.
The proposed plan is to build a second story covered deck addition in the back of the house,
together with a patio and a basement. The main objective is to improve concurrently the master
suite, as the roof height is pretty constrained. He described the plans diagram and design review.
The addition is requesting 3 variances because of the duplex lot and the subdivision lot lines:
1. Building Lot Coverage — it is 97 sq ft over lot coverage — if the duplex neighbors decks
are not included, then the applicant is under the lot coverage.
2. Impervious Coverage — if the driveway is divided so that the access line boundary of the
Duplex driveway is split and the access for the duplex neighbor lot is not counted — the
applicant is under impervious coverage.
3. Side yard setback — it is a duplex with a party wall — so a side yard setback does not
exist between the 2 properties, and the applicant would keep the same roof line along
the side -yard set -back
Public Comments:
1VIr. David Clapp, 392 Taylor St., displayed the original plans of Taylor Street. He is concerned
about additional construction to that property, he would like to get rid of the driveway in the
side -yard setback to have landscaping between his property and the applicants instead of asphalt.
Mr. Garth Koellhoffer, 434 Taylor St., inquired about the amount of rooms, sq. ft. and parking
spaces for each house on that property. He stressed the fact of the retaining wall and asked if the
new roof met the height codes. He complained about the parking and insisted the driveway needs
to be addressed and come up to Code compliance. Mr. Koellhoffer expressed his frustration on
most neighbors pulling into his own driveway to turn around or back up. He stated the property
already has 12 variances, why are we giving them more?
Mr. Congdon, clarified all he is trying to do is a basement, to serve as extra storage and not a
living or rental area. Also stated that the only cars that park outside on Taylor Street are Mr.
Clapp's renters.
Janet H. clarified that this property hasn't applied for 12 variances. When the house was built in.
the 1980's the duplex homes were in zoning code compliance. Changes to the code over the
years, makes many elements of the duplex, not in current zoning code compliance — for example:
Minturn does not allow mirrored image duplexes any more. The not compliant design elements
are not variances, they were to code when built, now this is a historic property per code changes.
Hence the need for variances.
Planning Commission Comments:
Jeff A. recited a letter from the neighbors at 412A Taylor St., the neighboring duplex, in which
they indicated that their property has an easement that allows them to park in Mr. Congdon's
driveway. Resulting in a higher impervious area for him, as his driveway serves two separate
properties. They support the application for a variance in 412B Taylor St.
Jeff A. described a possible way of eliminating some of the asphalt and suggested to plant more
trees instead. He didn't find a problem with the building design, height or parking.
Greg G. agreed with applicant and planner that if it was considered as a single parcel rather than
two non -conforming lots, a variance wouldn't be needed. Greg G requested to see the access
agreement between the 2 duplex owners. Craig Congdon stated be didn't think they have one, it
is designated on the plat. Craig didn't believe a formal document existed on the maintenance and
use of the access.
Greg G. agreed with Jeff A. about the building height and parking not being an issue. Concerned
with 3 variances given, and challenged if the applicant can remove impervious surface and
shrink some of the decks in the front to come into codes for impervious surface and building lot
coverage. The side yard setback is not an issue because it is a duplex with a party wall
Burke H. believes Mr. Congdon is not creating a problem, nevertheless parking is still an issue in
Town. He has a problem with extra sq. ft. being built, and asked why not shrink the deck below
97 sq ft. He is worried about the possibility of the basement becoming a room, or living area,
such as a short term rental, which would definitely suggest more parking spaces needed.
Allowing the variance would also set a bad precedent for any future requests.
The architect, John, explained the extra 97 sq. ft. is desired because it creates a standard 14' wide
deck — to accommodate tables and the hot tub. To remove this would shrink the deck to only 10'
wide — creating not as great of usable space. The deck is within the backyard setbacks and side
yard setback to the south. The basement is just for storage, however building code will require
them to put in egress windows.
Planning Commission requested that the easement agreement between the owners need to be part
of this application, since it is a duplex and they share the driveway. Mr. Congdon responded he
never saw any agreement or written understanding about an easement.
Janet H. stated this is not a criteria for any zoning or land use applications. That this request is
outside of the criteria for a design review. Planning commission challenged this criteria.
Janet H. requested a recess at 8:32pm to call the town engineer for his comments on an easement
agreement outside of a plat — as the town engineer approves plats for the town.
Meeting called back to order at 8:39pm.
Janet H. stated that the Town's engineer, Jeff Spenal, stated it is not the towns concern to be
involved with an access agreement — as long as access boundary is shown on the plat. Not having
an access agreement between the 2 duplex owners does not create a problem for the town or is a
criteria for plat approval. Since the variance is in the backyard of property, and not being
requested on the access agreement boundary area, does not view any additional criteria for
agreement to be produced.
Lynn T. expressed her concern about a deck needing to have 3 variances. She mentioned part of
the back of the property is owned by the town and the staircase may be a liability.
Jeff A. suggested to locate the recorded easement with the neighbor and moreover to look at the
costs and potentially modifying the front deck instead, to give back some sq. footage without the
need of requiring a variance. From a building perspective he thinks the basement is probably
going to be problematic.
Janet H. gave closing statement: that this is a variance because this is a duplex lot that was
subdivided leaving all decks and impervious driveway on one lot instead of subdivided between
both lots. As stated in the Planners Report: the variances meet the criteria to be granted per
town code. Once again, it is a covered second story deck in the backyard, causing no harm to
public safety, neighbors, views, or public health. If viewed as a duplex lot, as originally built
and then subdivided, no variances are needed.
Jeff A. motioned to table the 3 variances for 412 Taylor St., with the direction of having the
applicant bring the easement agreement, for planning commission to review it. As well as
considering design alternatives to the front decks, driveway and proposed deck, to eliminate the
need of I or 2 variances.
First by Jeff A., second by Greg G. - Motion approved 4-0
7. Planner Report:
• Planning Commission appointment at council
8. Next Meeting —June 28, 2017
Future Meetings:
a) Commission Meetings:
• July 26, 2017
• August 9, 2017
• August 23, 2017
9. Adjournment
Motion by Greg G., second by Burke H. to adjourn the meeting at 9:30pm. Motion passed 4-0.
CAXX/Il�
Teach, Chair
J net Hawkinson, Planning Director