Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 11-14-2018Minturn Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 1 of 5 lVlinturn OFFICIAL MINUTES MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645 Wednesday November 14, 2018 Work Session — 6:00pm CANCELLED 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 — 6:00 pm — CANCELLED Regular Session — 6:30pm 1. Call to Order Lynn T. called the meeting to order at 6:30pm • Roll Call Those present at Roll Call: Lynn Teach, Greg Sparhawk, Lauren Dickie, Greg Gastineau, Burke Harrington, and Jeff Armistead. Note: Lauren D. did not vote as the alternate. Staff Members Present: Town Planner Scot Hunn and Town Clerk/Treasurer Jay Brunvand. • Pledge of Allegiance Minhurn Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 2 of 5 2. Approval of Agenda • Items to be Pulled or Added Motion by Greg S., second by Jeff A., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5-0. 3. Approval of Minutes • October 24, 2018 Lynn T. requested to strike the comments from Brian Sipes from the minutes. Greg G. noted the correction regarding 611 Main, Greg G. was okay with the siding not Greg S. Motion by Jeff A., second by Greg S., to approve the Minutes of October 24, 2018 as corrected. Motion passed 5-0. 4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5min time limit per person) 5. Planning Commission Comments 6. Design Review & Land Use Application Public Hearings • The Stache Restaurant — New Signage (Sign Permit Application Review) Scot H. updated that Magustos Restaurant is changing their name to The Stache Restaurant. Scot H. explained how he measured the proposed sign; the sign is within the allowed limits. Discussion ensued regarding if the sign would be illuminated, the application does not identify lighting. Scot H. will confirm with the applicant. Jeff A. noted the sign is large, but because it is to be painted on the building rather than on an attachment that it may measures out differently. Motion by Greg G., second by Jeff A., to approve The Stache Restaurant sign permit application as presented with condition that the lighting be confirmed. Motion passed 5-0. • 841/851 Main Street Conceptual Review for New Duplex Development Patrick Dawson - Fortius Construction The Applicant, Fotius Construction, requests conceptual review of a new multi -unit duplex project located at 841 Main Street. This is the second concept review for the project, the first Minturn Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 3 of 5 occurring at the regular meeting of September 26, 2018. At issue during the review on September 26th was building height, access and maneuverability on the site. The project includes two (2) duplex structures on two existing lots, Lot 3A and Lot 313, both of which have frontage on Hwy. 24. The proposal includes a total of four (4) units to be accessed via a common driveway easement. While previous concept plans showed three-story structures, the Planning Commission's review revealed compliance issues with building height limitation. The current concept proposes two- story structures, each 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. The plans indicate a proposed building height just over 24 feet above existing grade, measured at the front fagade (in front of the garage) to the top of the flat roof ridge above. Maximum building height allowed in the South Town Character Area Residential Zone is 28 feet. Grading plans and elevations have not been fully developed until such time that the Applicant receives positive feedback on the conceptual design from the Planning Commission. The plans generally provide enough detail at this stage of review to determine conformance or non-conformance (areas of concern) in relation to applicable standards of Chapter 16 — Zoning. According to staff's analysis of development standards and dimensional limitations in Section III below, it appears that the proposed improvements generally comply with building height and, for the most part, lot coverage, impervious coverage and setbacks. However, staff does have concerns regarding: • Setbacks on Lot 3A • Adequacy of parking space dimensions and maneuverability on Lot 3B. Discussion ensued on the Administrative Replat process. Scot H. stated that if they are able to find a better way to situate the buildings that the lots could be reconfigured administratively to make this work and may reduce the need for variances or other needs. Mr. Patrick Dawson, applicant, spoke. He stated the lot allows for drainage away from the buildings and adjacent lots. Greg G. appreciated the effort on building height. Greg S. was concerned with Main St being proposed as a side road, allowing interior access rather than from Main St. He also stated the four units being the same size hampers access within the property and negatively affects setbacks; to reduce the size of one or two of the units would allow some mitigation of the setbacks. He also stated that two identical blocks with two identical units in each main block does not allow for differentiation of the units. Discussion ensued if the intent was to not mirror the units or to not duplicate the units. He asked as this comes forward that he would like to see how the buildings affect the neighboring adjacent units. Scot H. noted Mintnrn Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 4 of 5 that the density works if you take the original single lot. However, when it is subdivided to accommodate the two sets of duplexes, one lot exceeds the density allowance. Options of how this could be mitigated were discussed. Burke H. asked how and where the construction would be staged; on site as they will build one duplex set at a time. Both Greg S and Greg G. had concerns that to modify the setbacks by creating an interior traffic plan to cause Main St to considered a side, that was not right. The intent is to be set back from Main St with the front setback, side setbacks are much smaller and therefore push the building toward Main St. No motion was necessary as this was a Conceptual Review. • Eagle River Enclave — Mold Remediation Project & Exterior Modifications The Applicant, Eagle River Enclave Home Owners Association, requests review of proposed exterior modifications for Buildings `E' and `G', Eagle River Enclave condominiums located along the east side of US Hwy. 24 on Main Street. The purpose of the exterior modifications stems fiom substantial interior and exterior mold remediation work being performed on Buildings E and G; similar remedial work may follow for additional buildings in the condominium complex once additional exploration is performed at other buildings. However, it is believed by the HOA and their consultants/contractors that the most significant and sever cases of mold damage are occurring in Buildings E and G; thus, these buildings have been the focus of emergency remediation work being performed. It is staff's understanding after numerous meetings with the Applicant's representatives — Mark Donaldson, Victor Mark Donaldson Architecture, and Wayne Haskins, Wayne Haskins Construction — that mold issues can be traced to design and construction defects in the ERE buildings. Hence, the proposed e -design of several key elements of the roof and dormer structures at Buildings E and G. Mr. Darrel Anderson, contractor for the applicant, outlined the issues. He stated that as they got into the building, they realized they needed to open the roof and the walls. Because of the original poor construction of the building, proper drainage is not being attained. Their proposed solutions will allow for the mold mitigation, and proper drainage. Mr. Anderson noted the water will not flow or be redirected directly into the river. The issues currently being addressed are inherent in each of the building and will be addressed similarly. Greg S. asked if the building height is going to increase, it will increase slightly. Discussion ensued as to the current height and how it was calculated at original construction. The Planning Commission did a quick calculation and it appears the building height is over 40ft. The building is proposed to increase approximately lft to allow for moisture shedding. Further this correction will apply to three buildings. Mintnrn Planning Commission November 14, 2018 Page 5 of 5 Scot H. stated that this is a repair proposal on an existing building malting the height a preexisting nonconforming issue. Discussion ensued that the Planning Commission did not want to see an increase in height. Greg G. asked if this was an insurance claim; it appears to be an HOA cost. Concern was expressed that this could get partially completed and then run out of money. Motion Greg G., second Greg S. to table the mold remediation and exterior modifications as presented in order to obtain documentation on all the buildings and to obtain a variance request for all the buildings as regards to height. Motion passed 5-0. 7. Projects -None 8. Planning Director Report • General updates on upcoming/ongoing projects Bolts Lake Preliminary Plan has been submitted and is being reviewed at Staff levels. Scot H. said they are meeting tomorrow on review schedule. The applicant is very excited to keep this moving forward quickly. Discussion ensued as to the role of the Planning Commission and the Council. 1251 Main St will be coming back over the winter. Scot H. gave an update on the potential Dowd Junction development. He stated the Planning Commission may need to review the property to determine needs, desires, and densities. This is currently at Staff level and will include consultants. 9. Future Meetings • November 28, 2018 • December 12, 2018 • December 26, 2018 CANCELED 10. Adjournment Motion by Greg G., second by Burke H., to adjourn at 8:20pm. Motion passed 5-0. L each, Commission Chair ATTEST: Scot Hunn, Planning Director