Loading...
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