HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 08-22-2018Minturn Planning Commission
August 22, 2018
Page I of 8
lVtintLa
MINUTES
MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION
Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645
Wednesday August 22, 2018
Regular Session — 6:30pm
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.
Work Session — 5:30pm
• Appendix `B' Town Code — Design Standards and Guidelines Discussion
Regular Session — 6:30pm
1. Call to Order
Lynn T. called the meeting to order at 6:31pm
• Roll Call
• Pledge of Allegiance
Those present at Roll Call: Lynn Teach, Greg Gastineau, Greg Sparhawk, Burke Harrington,
Jeff Armistead, and Lauren Dickie.
Staff Members Present: Scot Hunn (Interim Town Planner) and Cindy Krieg (Economic
Development).
Minturn Planning Commission
August 22, 2018
Page 2 of 8
2. Approval of Agenda
• Items to be Pulled or Added
Motion by Greg S., second by Greg G., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion
approved 6-0.
3. Approval of Minutes
• August 8, 2018
Motion by Jeff A., second by Burke H., to approve the minutes of August 8, 2018 as presented.
Motion passed 6-0.
4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5min time limit per
person)
No public comments regarding items not on the agenda.
5. Planning Commission Comments
Greg S. commented that he is pleased with the mini libraries.
6. Design Review Applications
• 386 Taylor Avenue
Variance Request — To be continued
Note: The Variance request for 386 Taylor Ave. was publically noticed for 8/8/18
hearing; at the 8/8/18 meeting, the Planning Commission opened the public
hearing and, at the request of the Applicant, continued the public hearing
(without taking testimony) to the regular meeting of August 22, 2018. The
Applicant is requesting another continuance. Therefore, the public hearing
for this file will need to be re -opened and formally continued to a date certain
(the Applicant has requested 9/12/18).
Variance was originally approved 2 years ago, but is now expired (there is a one year
time -frame in which to begin work).
It was suggested that the Planning Commission do a site visit prior to the variance
hearing on September 12th.
• 550 Taylor Avenue
Schifani-Spencer Single -Family Residence
Final Plan Review
Mintum Planning Commission
August 22, 2018
Page 3 of 8
As Burke H. is the builder on this project, he recused himself from Planning
Commission for this review.
Applicant Raquel Spencer was in attendance.
Scot H. introduced the project.
Staff Report Notes:
The Applicants, Kate Schifani and Raquel Spencer, request Final Plan review of a new,
two-bedroom single-family residence located at 550 Taylor Avenue. Conceptual plans for
the project were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of July 11,
2018.
The Final Plans show, a two-story, modular structure placed over a poured foundation,
with side-by-side garage bays and parking space large enough for two full size vehicles
to be parked in tandem (stacked), along with ample storage or flex space. Additionally,
the proposed driveway in front of each garage bay is sized to accommodate two
additional vehicles.
The elevation drawings indicate proposed building height at approximately twenty-five
(25)feet above existing grade, while site and landscape plans appear to demonstrate
proper grading, drainage and re -vegetation of the site. According to staff's analysis of
development standards and dimensional limitations in Section III below, proposed
improvements are compliant with setbacks, along with lot and impervious coverage
limits, parking requirements, and maximum building height. Although additional details
are needed on the recently provided landscape and re -vegetation plan (to specifically
show limits of disturbance and proposed tree sizes; and, to provide a list of proposed
"native seed mix" and rates of seed application), staff suggests that site grading,
drainage and landscapingplans also comply with applicable standards.
Greg. G asked about articulation of roof form (and how it's specified in the design
guidelines). The design guidelines were brought up. Discussion ensued, and Planning
Commission members agreed that the design met the guidelines.
Motion by Jeff. A, second by Lauren D., to approve the application for 550 Taylor Ave
(Schifani-Spencer Single -Family Residence), with the Conditions Noted. Motion
approved 6-0.
Conditions:
1. The Applicant shall revise the landscape plan prior to or concurrent with building
permit application to show limits of disturbance, the location and details for
erosion control methods, the sizes of proposed trees, and details regarding re -
vegetative native seed mix and rates of application.
Minturn Planning Commission
August 22, 2018
Page 4 of 8
2. The Applicant shall revise the floor plans and elevation drawings to show all
proposed exterior lighting fixture locations, along with cut -sheets for proposed
fixtures to ensure that all outdoor lighting is downcast and otherwise complies
with dark, or night -sky compliant lighting.
• 541 Main Street
Gotthelf Residence Garage Remodel and Addition of Accessory Apartment
Final Plan Review
Eric Johnson, architect and representative, as well as the applicant, Eric Gotthelf, were in
attendance.
Scot H. introduced the project.
Staff Report Notes:
The Applicants, Eric and Lauren Gotthelf, request Final Plan review of a second story
Accessory Dwelling Unit (AD U) addition to an existing garage structure located at the
rear of the subject property, with direct access from Boulder Street. Existing conditions
include a paved parking area in front of the garage between the edge of (Boulder Street)
pavement and the existing garage structure, as well as adjacent parking for 1-2 vehicles
on the side of the existing garage. Conceptual plans for the project were reviewed by the
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of June 27, 2018.
The existing garage has two garage bays, but only one garage door; plans call for
remodeling the garage to allow for a two -car entry. Additionally, the southeastern side of
the existing garage currently violates the rear- and side yard setbacks.
As part of the project, the Applicants propose to remove a portion of the garage structure
on the south side of the lot — to remove an existing encroachment into the side yard
setback.
The design shows a two-story, two -car garage structure with a proposed building height
of approximately 23' feet above existing grade. The AD complies with Chapter 16 size
limitations and parking is provided on-site. Solar panels are proposed on the roof of the
garage/ADU.
The project Architect, Eric Johnson, AIA, has designed the project to ensure that the
second level addition (face of building on the Boulder Street side) is pulled back to be
entirely within the 10 foot rear setback line, while proposing a deck structure over the
existing garage face that currently encroaches into the rear setback. Town staff, inclusive
of the Town Attorney, advise that this design will NOT exacerbate any pre-existing
nonconformities,
or require a variance, as the removal of a portion of the existing garage roof
will reduce or lessen an existing non -conformity and the proposed addition (second level
Accessory Apartment habitable space) is proposed outside of the setback.
The plans show the new roofform encroaching no more than 18" into the rear setback,
as is permitted by the Code.
Mintum Planning Commission
August 22, 2018
Page 5 of 8
Staff feels comfortable that the application meets the current code, and is a parking
improvement.
Applicant has agreed to remove an existing deck (turn back into lawn) to address the
impervious surface area (this would get them to 50.5%).
Greg S. asked about driveway width requirements, and how that was factored into
impervious surface area. Planning Commission and staff reviewed the Town code
requirements for driveways, which do state that all driveway surfaces (regardless of
material), must be a minimum 12ft width, and are counted toward impervious
surface. The Planning Commission ultimately decided that the driveway design
meets the intent of the code.
Scot H. provided additional lighting information in print to the Planning
Commission, (which was provided to him by applicant, upon request after initial
review).
Motion by Greg S., second by Greg G., to approve the application for 541 Main St
(Gotthelf Residence Garage Remodel and Addition of Accessory Apartment)
With Conditions as noted.
Conditions:
1. The Applicant shall revise the floor plans and elevation drawings to show all
proposed exterior lighting fixture locations, along with cut -sheets for proposed
fixtures to ensure that all outdoor lighting is downcast and otherwise complies
with dark, or night -sky compliant lighting.
• 841/851 Main Street
Minturn Duplex Project
Conceptual Plan Review and Determination of Building Height Calculation
Methods
Scot H. introduced the project.
Patrick Dawson (applicant) was not able to be present, however Ben Biggs
(representative / construction consultant) was present.
Staff Report Notes:
The Applicant, Fotius Construction, requests conceptual review of a new multi -unit
duplex project located at 841 Main Street.
The project includes two (2) duplex structures on two existing lots, Lot 3,4 and Lot 3B,
both of which have frontage on Hwy. 24. The proposal includes a total offour (4) units to
be accessed via a common driveway. Each unit is a three-story structure, with a one car
garage. The site plan shows at least one (1) parking space in front of each garage, for a
total of two (2) spaces per unit.
Mintum Planning Commission
August 22, 2018
Page 6 of 8
The plans shoran a proposed building height of approximately 33' feet above existing
grade, measured at the f ont fagade (in front of the garage) to the top of the shed roof
ridge above. The approximate mid point measurement (from existing grade) is 31 '-6 ".
The grading plan also shows an elevated finished grade around three sides each building
that would result in mid point measurements of approximately 28' and a height
measurement at the rear of the structure of approximately 25' as measured from finished
grade to the top of the eave.
The Applicant seeks feedback at the conceptual stage of review regarding building
height calculation methodology prior to continuing with the development of plans
and further engineering work.
The plans generally provide enough detail at this stage of review to determine the
adequacy of proposed grading and drainage. According to staff's analysis of
development standards and dimensional limitations in Section III below, it appears that
the proposed improvements are generally compliant with regard to setbacks; lot and
impervious coverage limits; and, parking requirements.
However, staff does have concerns regarding adequacy of access and maneuverability on
the site.
The primary concern is regarding building height (and lack of clarity in the current
municipal code).
Scot H. discussed his interpretation of the code for a shed roof (not a flat roof).
(to be measured at any point around the perimeter of the structure, to existing or finished
grade around the structure, whichever is more restrictive). Scot H. also clarified that the
code states that no point of a roof or structure is permitted to exceed maximum building
height.
Ben Biggs (110 Taylor St), construction consultant / represenative on this project,
addressed the Planning Commission.
He explained that they could possibly lower the grade by 2 ft. to get to the required roof
height (depending on where the height is measured). He felt that they could get to 28ft at
mid -point.
Existing grade is higher than street level, so can be lowered somewhat (part of the garage
would then be below grade).
Discussion ensued regarding building height calculation. Scot H. brought up that section
of the building code. Planning Commission agreed that for a shed roof, the 28ft
restriction is to be measured at the mid -point to the most restrictive grade point around
the structure).
There was additional discussion regarding the mid -point over the garage, for this project.
Greg S. requested additional clarification regarding existing and finished grade.
Mr. Biggs explained that existing and finished grade would be the same.
Mintum Planning Commission
August 22, 2018
Page 7 of 8
Lynn T. brought up parking. She expressed that there is no space for residents or guests
to back out (and then pull forward onto Hwy 6), and that there is no room for guest
parking.
Snow storage (and access to said snow storage with proposed parking) was also
discussed.
Burke H. also expressed concern over backing out onto Main St / Hwy 24, but also noted
that that is a hardship for anyone building on that street.
Consensus was reached by the Commission regarding where and how the building height
should be measured:
Building height will be calculated from the midpoint of the shed room to the most
restrictive point around each structure; in this case, the most restrictive point will be the
finished grades in f tont of each garage, based on the conceptual plan.
Greg S. stated his concerns:
• Whether the project is able to minimize impact to adjacent properties
• Siding (not natural materials).
• 32ft mid -point to garage floor
Conceptual review only, no motion needed.
• Bolts Lake PUD
Concept Development Plan Review — To be continued
Note: The Applicant, Battle North, LLC., requests that the ongoing conceptual
review of the Concept Development Plan for Bolts Lake PUD be continued
to a future Planning Commission date. Because this is a conceptual review,
no formal public notice was posted and no formal actions to approve or deny
the Concept Development Plan is required. Therefore, the review may be
continued indefinitely.
Tim McGuire with Battle North, LLC was present, and addressed the Planning
Commission.
As Battle North LLC just received responses / input from Town Staff and Town Attorney
regarding preliminary plan requirements, they have requested more time to review and
would like to continue the discussion to future meetings.
Mr. McGuire would like to provide an update at the next meeting, but will continue to
work with staff to address information requests for conceptual plan review while
preparing for the preliminary plan submission.
He also wanted to wait until the Town had more information regarding the water source
discussion.
Minhirn Planning Commission
August 22, 2018
Page 8 of 8
Mr. McGuire did provide a zoning map for Phase 1 to the Cormnission, and will also be
providing electronically. This was provided in order to give more clarification on the
proposed development of Phase 1 (Maloit Park Area). This information will be provided
for all phases when the preliminary application is submitted.
Scot H. noted that the water discussion will continue in more detail at the September 19th
Council Meeting.
7. Projects
N/A
8. Planning Director Report
• Chapter 16 Code Revisions Update
Scot H. noted that the Chapter 16 revision project is ongoing, but that he does not have a
draft yet for review. Based on the review by the town attorney of the working draft, as
well as staff workload, Scot H. anticipates having a draft for review in the near future.
9. Future Meetings
• September 12, 2018
o 386 Taylor Ave. —Variance Request and Duplex Conceptual Review
• September 26, 2018
10. Adjournment
Motion by Greg G., second by Greg S., to adjourn at 7:42pm. Motion passed 6-0.
Teach, Commission Chair
ATTEST:
Scot Hunn, Planning Director