Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 07-11-2018Minhmi Planning Commission July 11, 2018 Page I of 1 I Y1, lNinturn MINUTES MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645 Wednesday July 11, 2018 Regular Session - 6:00pm CHAIR —Lynn Teach COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jeff Armistead Lauren Dickie Burke Harrington Greg Gastineau Greg Sparhawk 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 Council Meeting. Additionally, all Council 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 Town Clerk at 970/827-5645 302 Pine St. Minturn, CO 81645. Site Visits — 6:00pm 1. Call to Order Lynn T. called the meeting to order at 6:02pm Roll Call Those present at Roll Call: Lynn Teach, Jeff Armistead, Greg Gastineau, Greg Sparhawk. Note: Burke H. and Lauren D. were excused absent. Lynn T. recessed the meeting, to convene at Visit Location, 221 Main St. It was determined that a site visit to second location (550 Taylor Ave) was unnecessary. Y 221 Main Street Note: Lauren D. met up with Commission at 221 Main St. Burke H. was excused absent from meeting, so Lauren D. was a voting member. Minhan Planning Commission July 11, 2018 Page 2 of I I Regular Session — 6:30pm Lynn T. reconvened the meeting at 6:30pm, upon returning from Site Visit. C Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approval of Agenda ® Items to be Pulled or Added Motion by Greg S, second by Lauren D., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5-0. 3. Approval of Minutes • June 13,2018 Motion by Greg G., second by Jeff A, to approve the minutes of June 13, 2018 as presented. Motion passed 5-0. • June 27, 2018 Changes Greg S. wanted to note that his motion to accept application as presented (for 562 Taylor Ave) — was based on grade height at perimeter of building (not interior of building). He would like to clarify this in the minutes. Also, within conceptual review of 541 Main St — discussion ensued as to whether there would need to be a variance for the deck that was being built over the non -conforming structure; Scot H. will confer with the Town Attorney for guidance. Motion by Greg S, second by Jeff A, to approve the minutes of June 27, 2018, as amended. Motion passed 5-0. 4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5min time limit per person) No public conmzents 5. Planning Commission Comments Jeff A. inquired about fishing grants update, Lauren D. stated that we are still waiting on a response. Minium Planning Commission July 11, 2018 Page 3 of ll 6. Design Review Applications 0 221 Main Street — Warzecha Residence Garage Addition and Variance Request Scot H. introduced the project and discussed criteria for variance, including hardship requirement. Staff Report Notes: Summary of -Request.• The Applicants, Tom Warzecha and Sarah Dorman, request revierP of a new garage structure located at the rear of the subject property with direct access f -om Boulder Street Existing conditions include a gravel parking area between the edge of (Boulder Street) pavement and an existing concrete retaining wall and fence; this area provides off-street parking for the existing two-bedroom home located at 221 Main Street. The proposed plans also include a proposed Main Level addition of approximately 56 sq. ft. The Town ofMinturn no longer calculates or limits Floor Area (GRFA) and because this minor addition is located underneath an existing 2nd floor deck, the addition will not add to maximum lot coverage. The design shows a two -car garage with a maximum building height of approximately 11 feet above existing grade. The garage will be constructed over and incorporating the existing concrete retaining wall located at the rear of the property. The space below the proposed garage structure will remain open and could be used for storage. To necessitate the construction of a garage, the Applicants are also seeking a variance f •om rear -and side yard setback requirements. The face of the proposed garage structure will be located approximately 5 feet, from the edge of pavement and approximately 2.5 feet from the rear property line. The northern side of the garage is proposed at the northern property boundary. Last, the plans and surveys included for review show that the existing residence (building footprint) is currently compliant with maximum allowable lot (building) coverage. Based on the lot acreage of.080 acres (3,485 sq. ft. lot) the total allowable coverage is approximately 1,393 sq. ft (40% max.); existing lot coverage is estimated at approximately 1, 331 sq. ft (3801o). However, the proposed 553 sq. ft. garage addition along with the addition to the existing residence will result in a maximum lot coverage of approximately 1,884 sq. f., or approximately 54% lot coverage. Therefore, the request is for a variance from setbacks and from the maximum allowable lot coverage. Minturn Planning Commission July 11, 2018 Page 4 of I i Max lot coverage is 40%. With improvements, client is requesting 54% lot coverage, to build over retaining wall which encroaches into rear setback, with garage / carport addition in order to provide onsite parking. Access off of Boulder St. Outstanding issues had to do with snow storage / management, as well as parking. Greg G. inquired as to why this property is zoned for mixed use, while adjacent property to the north (in Old Town Character Area) is zoned for commercial. Scot H. reviewed the zoning information with the Commission. Lynn T. inquired, if this were a smaller garage and did not encroach, would this still require a variance. Scot H. explained that it would not, if it did not actually encroach the setback, and if it did not result in violation of maximum lot coverage. Applicants present, discussed variance request. Mr. Tom Warzecha and Ms. Sarah Dorman, 221 Main St. Mr. Warzecha explained that there is water damage to the existing retaining wall, he wants to waterproof and protect. And that they need to provide onsite parking (priority), accessed from Boulder St. There is currently no onsite parking. Ms. Dorman also explained that the fence is in very poor shape, and they need to improve. Parking has been a problem, and this was applicant's idea to help resolve parking. There is public parking in front of the house, this would provide 2 onsite parking spaces. There is a small amount of snow storage. The applicants stated that they intend to mitigate by removing snow from the flat roof and hauling to a snow dump. Drainage would be directed out to Boulder St. Original size of structure and previous renovation were discussed. Original lot had more buildings, which were removed due to condition. Greg S. expressed concern over the lot coverage. He questioned the hardship which would warrant the variance. He expressed that there are other viable solutions to solving the parking issue, and the retaining wall, without adding proposed structure. (Parking platform?) Lauren D. also expressed that although onsite parking is important, that this proposal is not the only option, and does not appear to meet hardship requirements. Discussion continued, however, regarding the necessity for onsite parking. Currently parking is isolated in the the setback / right of way. Mr. Warzecha noted that he felt the roof was a better idea than open parking, due to snow. Mintum Planning Commission July It, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Public comments: Mr. Kelly Tune, 531 Main St. — inquired if it was a parking deck, how would you manage the snow? Snow melt was suggested. Mr. Rob Gosiewski, 560 Taylor St. — expressed that he feels the roof is a good idea as it pertains to snow. Planning Commission Comments: After continued discussion regarding the hardship requirement, the existing retaining wall was identified as the hardship. Motion by Greg G, Second by Lauren D, to accept the variance request as presented. Motion passed 3-2. (Nay: Lynn T. and Greg S.) • 550 Taylor Avenue — Schifani-Spencer Residence Scot H introduced application (see staff report notes below). Application complies with all code requirements. Staff Report Notes: Summary ofRequest: The Applicants, Kate Schifani and Raquel Spencer, request conceptual review of a new, 'two- bedroom single-family residence on this. The design shows a two-story modular structure placed over a poured foundation. The plans show two side-by-side garage hays with space large enough for two full size vehicles to be parked in tandem (stacked), along with ample storage or flex space, while the proposed driveway in front of each garage bay is sized to accommodate two additional vehicles. The plans show a proposed building height of approximately 25' feet above existing grade, while providing enough detail at this stage of review to determine the adequacy ofproposed grading and drainage. According to staff's analysis of development standards and dimensional limitations in Section HI below, it appears that the proposed improvements are compliant with regard to setbacks; lot and impervious coverage limits; parking requirements; and, maximum building height. Applicants present (Kate Schifani and Raquel Spencer) Still in conceptual phase. Scot H. opened up to questions and comments. No questions from commission. Minturn Planning Commission July 11, 2018 Page 6 of l l Public comments: Mr. Rob Gosiewski. of 560 Taylor St: does not feel the culvert is necessary. He likes the plan, suggested windows on the garage like they did at his residence (per Lyme T's recommendation). No motion required, still in conceptual phase. Staff Comments: Michelle Metteer, Town Manager, addressed the group to give a brief update on the water discussion and renegotiation of the various existing annexation_ agreements pertaining to. the Battle Mountain planned rurit development. It was mentioned that the Bolt's Lake development would play a major role in ongoing discussions regarding town water. She also reminded everyone that the information regarding the water source discussion, is available on the website, and in the town newsletter. • Bolt's Lake Conceptual Development Plan Review Scot H. introduced the project and discussed PUD criteria and approval process. PUD Approval Process — 3 step process: • Conceptual Development Plan • Preliminary Plan for PUD • Final Plan for PUD and & Development Agreement The property is already zoned PUD. Concept Development Plan Review: Observations from Scot H: • Concept plan appears to generally conform with the Community Plan • Concept Plan generally exhibits efficient and integrated land use patterns • Concept Plan appears to integrate transportation and transit improvements and may contribute to the Town's trail system. • Concept Plan appears to be more appropriate than previous plans based on avoidance of hazards and sensitive areas • Concept Plan appears to provide a wide range of housing options and could be further refined to include a housing program • There are opportunities to closely examine internal circulation and access points • There are opportunities to update the overall "Draft Concept Plan" to match neighborhood -level plans Minhmr Planning Commission lily 11, 2018 Page 7 of 11 Outstanding Issues: Applicant should be required to provide an updated Fiscal Impact Analysis Applicant is working on updated traffic analysis and is working with the Town and with CDOT Suggested Discussion Topics from Scot H: While staff has yet to formulate a staff recommendation for the Concept Development Plan for Bolts Lake PUD, the following list of suggested topics should serve to organize the Planning Commission's review of the proposal: 1. Overall conformance with Concept Development Plan submittal requirements — Did the Town receive the level and type of information necessary to fully evaluate the general conceptfor development? 2. Additional information required for proper and timely review of the Concept Development Plan? 3. Overall understanding of the process, criteria and standards for review of the proposed Concept Development Plan. 4. Overall appropriateness of the PUD vs. development of the property as a conventional subdivision. 5. Overall appropriateness of the proposed range, general locations and types of residential, commercial and/or mixed -uses. 6. Overall compatibility of the project and conformance with community master plan documents. 7 Aspects of the proposal deserving more refinement either prior to conceptual level review and approval, or as part of any Preliminary Plan for PUD application. Next Steps: Planning commission review — ongoing Additional meetings — 8/8 (Applicant not available for 7/25 meeting). Notices will be sent out to the public. Presentation was given by Mr. Tim McGuire (representing Battle Mountain): Mr. McGuire reviewed the location and history (original annexation) of the project. Also discussed physical constraints of the property, the EPA challenges, and hopes to re- introduce the reservoir. Pointed out the Superfund site areas. Site was mitigated and cleaned in the 90's, but not to residential living standards. Since there is residual soil still containing contamination, mitigation would continue (working with EPA and CDPHE on the solution). All plans would need to be approved and certified by the EPA. Not proposing any development in the highly contaminated areas. Minturn Planning Commission July 11, 2018 Page 8 of I I Existini2 Studies used for this concent elan application being include Traffic Wildfire Wildlife Archeologic Survey Environment Soils Fiscal Geological Traffic and fiscal studies are being updated, while other studies should not have changed. Will be conducting an upcoming meeting with CDOT (representatives from the Town and stakeholder groups will be invited). Reviewed Site Plan / Phases / Town Income 10 — 20 year build -out in total, with all phases (proposing 4 phases currently, with sub -phases in each phase). lst Phase would be in the Maloit Park area Questions / Comments from Commission: Lynn T. inquired as to whether notices would be sent out to the public regarding all public meetings. Mr. McGuire agreed that they would send out a postcard. Greg S. asked if the 700 units included the 35 -acre parcels on the mountain -top property. Mr. McGuire stated that is does not. The 700 total units would be for the Bolts Lake property itself. Greg S asked about the traffic study — would that include the mountain -top possible units. Mr. McGuire stated that it would include possible future development (possibly 50 mountain -top units). Jeff A. brought up the Annexation and Water projects, and how timing would influence (given decision timing both on this project, as well as annexation and water). Mr. McGuire stated that he hopes a water agreement will be made in time for decisions on this project (could be made a condition of approval). Jeff A. also asked if there were any other zoning changes that might be proposed during the project. Mr. McGuire stated not at this stage, but that the preliminary plans will have detail as more plans are finalized Greg S. inquired as to whether this would be 1, or multiple PUDs. Scot H replied that it would be one PUD, but the applicant is proposing that preliminary plan detail would be presented and approved in each phase, and stated it would be a public process with each phase. Miulum Planning Commission July 11, 2018 Page 9 of 11 Greg G. brought up the potential impact of the separation of town into two main areas, especially if there is commercial space (would like to complement downtown, not compete with downtown). (used Eagle Ranch as an example), expressed concern over 100 block. However, Greg G. did express that he is pleased with the changes from the original plan and encouraged with the new direction of the project. Lauren D. asked when the wildfire study was done — Mr. McGuire stated he would double check, but believes it was 2009. Lauren D. expressed concern due to recent wildfires and wondered about our current fire service being able to service the area. Mr. McGuire is meeting with the fire district and will report back. Greg. S also inquired about discussions with Eco Transit, and possible increased bus service; discussions have not taken place yet, but applicant plans to explore that. Greg S. also suggested building upon the diversity (with the architecture and design), vs. being homogenized. Greg S. also asked about a contingency plan with vertical developer / designer. Lynn T. asked about the results of the most recent traffic study. Mr. McGuire expressed that it should be available in August. Not required at conceptual phase, but this is happening currently. Traffic study will encompass the full project but will focus on phase 1 (as the study will need to be conducted again in future phases). The previous traffic study (from original proposed plan) was conducted based on 1700 units. Scot H. stated assumptions within the study need to be looked at closely, as the project is now very different than the original. Comments from Public: • Kelly Tune, 531 Main St. Primary concern — same as Greg S. — diversity / style (brought up Eagle Ranch) Suggested mixing up the home types within each area, vs. having an apartment area, large home area, duplex area, etc. Suggest offering design options to buyers. Liked the idea of having some retail space that's bikeable. Curious about parking for the reservoir, retail, etc — for people coming in from the other side of town and wanting to make use of the amenities. Asked about Two Elk access. Asked if there was a hotel proposed anymore in any of the future phases. Mr. McGuire stated not at this time. It could be a possibility in the future, but not in the current plans. It was suggested Minturn Planning Commission July 11, 2018 Page 10 of 1 I that might be something worth looking into, since the town is currently somewhat challenged in that area. Also expressed concern over traffic impact (and speed). • Tom Braun, representing Eagle County Schools 225 Main St., Edwards School District wasn't concerned with the earlier (original) project's impact to the school district. This project is very different, and the school district would like to better understand the type and mix of residents and needs for the school district. Also suggested not naming the Maloit Park area Maloit Park (so as to avoid confusion)___- ® Rob Davis, 1796 Main St. Re. phase 1 and 2 — traffic study Expressed concern over Wildlife migration / access to Eagle River. Suggested we need two bridges, more migration access for wildlife. Water — concern over water quality being maintained at least to what it is now. Mr. McGuire addressed water quality. The mitigation portion of their project will actually improve water quality, as it will prevent water from coming into contact with contaminated soil. 7. Projects 8. Planning Director Report Lynn T re -opened public comment, upon request, at 9:08pm. Mr. Rob Gosiewski, 560 Taylor St. Expressed concern over the Tisler project (562 Taylor St) that was approved at the last meeting. (non -conforming Window well / setback). Also expressed that he feels the building height is over regulation. It was discussed, as to whether ILCs require roof ridge height to be shown. Commission suggested that this be brought up to council. Public Comment Closed at 9:11pm. 9. Future Meetings • July 25, 2018 Minium Planning Commission July 11, 2018 Page I I of I I ® August 8, 2018 ® August 22, 2018 10. Adjournment Motion by Greg G., second by Jeff A., to adjourn at 9:12pm. Motion passed 5-0. 4Teach, Commission Chair ATTEST: Scot Hunn, Interim own Planner