Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 6-12-2019Minturn Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page I of 17 lVlinturn OFFICIAL MINUTES MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645 Wednesday, June 12, 2019 Work Session — CANCELLED Regular Session — 6:30pm CHAIR — Lynn Teach COMMISSION MEMBERS: Jeff Armistead Lauren Dickie Burke Harrington Greg Gastineau Greg Sparhawk When addressing the Commission, please state your name and your address for the record prior to providing your comments. Please address the Commission as a whole through the Chair. All supporting documents are available for public review in the Town Offices — located at 302 Pine Street, Minturn CO 81645 — during regular business hours between 8:00 a.m, and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Work Session — 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: Greg G., Lynn T., Greg S., Jeff A. and Burke H. Lauren D. arrived at 6:50pm. Staff Members Present: Town Planner Scot Hunn, Economic Development Coordinator Cindy Krieg. Mintum Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 2 of 17 2. Approval of Agenda • Items to be Pulled or Added Motion by Jeff A., second by Greg S., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5-0. 3. Approval of Minutes • May 22, 2019 Motion by Jeff A., second by Burke H., to approve the minutes of May 22, 2019 as presented. Motion passed 5-0. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (5min time limit per person) Michelle Metteer, Town Manager, 302 Pine St. Announced that the Shooting Range Cleanup Day will be held on June 24th from 5:30 — 7:30pm. USFS will oversee. 5. Planning Commission Comments Greg S. mentioned that the Town Cleanup Day went very smoothly, and thanked the Public Works department for their hard work. 6. Design Review & Land Use Application Public Hearings • 101 Main St — Magustos Sign Permit Application Scot H. introduced the application. Eric Cregoen, owner, is essentially just replacing the original painted sign (back to what it was before the last ownership change). Photos of the previous sign were presented. Staff Recommendation: Approval Minturn Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 3 of 17 Motion by Greg G., second by Greg S., to approve the sign permit application for the painted sign at 101 Main St (Magustos). Motion passed 5-0. • Draft Ordinance to Amend the Minturn Municipal Code (1041 Regulation Exemptions) o Staff Recommendation: Approval The recommended ordinance contains two code amendments to chapter 16. First, is an amendment to the Town's code regarding Areas and Activities of State Interest, or 1041 regulations. The commission recently recommended approval for an exemption to these regulations for minor maintenance and replacement activities for wastewater treatment facilities. In this ordinance, however, the Town will add further review criteria for all projects, and specific mandatory criteria for water and sewer projects. Generally, these criteria relate to infrastructure, service, and financial impacts that such projects might cause through population growth. These criteria would apply to a project traversing Town, even if the population growth were to occur outside of the Town boundaries. The Colorado Supreme Court has determined that the statute authorizing 1041 regulations permits local governments to adopt regulations that are more restrictive than the statute, as long as they relate to the same general objectives. We have determined that these proposed review criteria relate to the financial ability of the Town to provide infrastructure and services for new populations facilitated by water and sewer projects. Second, is an amendment to the Town's fee provisions for land use application review. Ii would clarify the Town's ability to collect reimbursement fees to review activities that go beyond those activities enumerated in the fee schedule. This practice is already in use in Minturn and common in municipal planning departments, however codifying it is helpful to ensure the Town receives the fees it is due. Likewise, the amendment would provide for reimbursement to the Town for attorney's fees in any litigation arising from a decision on a land use application, when the Town is the prevailing party. Lawsuits around land use applications can become very costly to all parties. This provision should help deter frivolous appeals where a disgruntled applicant has a weak case. Motion by Greg S, second by Greg G., to recommend the draft ordinance to Town Council for approval. Motion passed 5-0. Minturn Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 4 of 17 • 161 Main Street — New Commercial Building Conceptual Plan Review The Planning Commission has had ongoing discussions with MR Minturn regarding the 100 block, and in particular the 161 / 171 lot of Main St. This is a conceptual review, to provide feedback to the applicant. No action / approval is needed at this time. Scot H. introduced the project. Staff Report Highlights: The Applicant, M.R. Minturn, requests conceptual review of a new mixed-use, commercial and residential project located at 161 and 171 Main Street. The project includes one building designed to appear as three separate building frontages along Hwy. 24, placed on the combined area of four existing, historic 25 x 100 foot lots. The proposed structure maintains a two-story appearance and building massing along Main Street, while a third story is proposed at the rear of the building along the Williams Street right-of-way and stepped back from Main Street in accordance with the design standards of the Town. The proposal includes a total of six (6) residential dwelling units of varying size and layout on the second and third floors totaling 9,365 sq. ft., along with 2,400 sq. ft. of commercial space on the first floor fronting Main and Nelson streets. As this is a conceptual plan review, staff is not making any formal recommendation to approve or deny the proposal. Conceptual plan review requests are informal in nature and are intended for the Applicant to provide an overview of the project, to seek feedback from the Planning Commission, and to, then, make revisions to proposed plans in the event the project moves forward to a Final Plan review. However, the Planning Commission, acting as the Design Review Board, may grant "conceptual approval" if it is determined that the proposal generally meets design standards and other applicable development regulations and dimensional limitations. With the exception of maximum lot size (over), maximum impervious coverage (over), and snow storage area calculations (unknown), it appears that the conceptual plans generally meet or exceed standards for lot coverage, required setbacks, building height and parking. Applicant Representatives: Bill Pierce and Kit Austin with Pierce Architects Tom Warren and Amanda Krost with MR Minturn. Staff suggests that the proposed conceptual plans generally incorporate and adhere to the above stated intents and principles aimed at ensuring that new or redeveloped commercial and mixed-use buildings reflect, respect and enhance the character and scale of the 100 - Block. During its review, staff suggests that the Planning Commission consider the above factors or principles, and whether there are other elements of building design, streetscape Minturn Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 5 of 17 design, materials and architectural detailing that could enhance the project and the overall conformance with the intent of the 100 -Block design standards. With regard to the width of the building, staff suggests the Planning Commission pay particular attention to the front fagade of the building which has been designed to appear as three separate structures that have been constructed over time. If interpreted as three separate structures (or facades), each element is less than 75 feet wide, with the widest building element being approximately 49 feet wide. However, if the Planning Commission determines that the building width is to be interpreted as one building footprint across the four separate lots, the total width is approximately 87 feet and the Applicant will need to apply for a variance from this particular standard. Additionally, the combined area of the four lots (Lots 1-4, Mackedon & Rathburns Subdivision) is approximately 9,975 sq. ft. according to the Eagle County Assessor's records. Therefore, the lot area exceeds the maximum 7,500 sq. ft. by 2,475 sq. ft., or 33 percent. Staff suggests that the Applicant will need to apply for a variance from this particular standard as well. The conceptual plans show a pedestrian passageway between building elements, allowing passage from Main Street to Williams Street at the rear of the property. The proposed three-story mixed-use building includes first floor commercial uses along with residential uses on the second and third floors. The front fagade of the building does not exceed two -stories and is designed to give the appearance of three separate, smaller buildings constructed over time. Therefore, the building height fronting Hwy. 24 varies from 17' to 27' (measured ftom grade to the top of the parapet wall). While the front fagade (and a portion of the building that fronts on both Main Street and Nelson Avenue) maintains a two-story massing, the building steps up to three stories (with 45 -degree bulk plane measure from the front property line) to accommodate two floors of residential uses over the first -floor commercial uses. The rear and portions of the side elevations not fronting Hwy. 24 are proposed at a height of 34' 6" as measured to the mid -point of sloping roof elements. The third floor is stepped back from the ftont street elevation along Main Street, but not along the rear property boundary along Williams Street. Based on the standards cited above, staff suggests that the building meets or exceeds with the height restrictions along the Hwy. 24 and, depending on the Planning Commission's interpretation of the standards, it also appears to meet the intent and restrictions for "commercial buildings not fronting or adjacent to Hwy. 24." However, staff suggests that a determination of compliance with sub -paragraph (a) above relies on an interpretation that 1) the mixed-use building can be classified as "commercial" and, 2) that the bulls plane regulations do not apply to the rear elevation that fronts Williams Street. Minturn Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 6 of 17 Snow Storage and Orientation of Buildings and Roof Forms The specific standards of Chapter 16 require that the site design accommodates snow storage on-site, while the design guidelines encourage designs that integrate or account for snow storage and snow shed from roof structures, along with ensuring that the orientation of buildings — to street frontages and neighboring properties — is considered. Staff suggests that the Applicant review with the Planning Commission how the design integrates or accounts for snow storage and how snow storage areas have beenc calculated. Specifically, a minimum of five (5%) percent of the total setback area be reserved or maintained as "temporary snow storage." The application lists total snow storage at 140 sq. ft., however the plans do not indicate the total amount of "setback area" (or those portions of the site preserved as side, front and rear yard setbacks) or how the total snow storage area was calculated. The plans should be revised to show where permanent and temporary snow storage is to be accommodated on the property and how total snow storage area is being calculated. Staff believes the proposed conceptual design generally meets the intent of this particular section of the Town's design standards by providing consistent, yet varied interruptions or break-ups of fagade through the use of architectural detailing and materials, steps and recessions in building walls, and the use of window and door fenestration to establish symmetry, delineate floors/stories, and to create distinct openings. The conceptual plans currently show a maximum of 2,400 sq. ft. of commercial uses on the first floor. According to the application, the amount of commercial square footage in this instance is a function of, or is dictated by, the require parking. As the amount of commercial square footage is just under 2,500 sq. ft., staff does not believe that a plaza is required in this instance. However, the Applicant has specifically designed the front portion of the property to include varying widths of sidewalk and landscape planting areas along Hwy. 24 to accommodate sidewalk activity (including Minturn Market vendor booths) and public gathering space, and specifically to meet or exceed the minimum required streetscape landscape area. Maximum Site Coverage Area The application lists the total or maximum impervious (the total amount of lot area covered by buildings and impervious surfaces such as parking areas, sidewalks, and patios) at 9,695 sq. ft., or approximately 97% of the overall site area. The standards for the 100 -Block Commercial Zone District permit up to 90% total site coverage by buildings and impervious surfaces. The Applicant should revise the plans accordingly to reduce the overall amount of building and impervious coverage or be required to apply for a variance from this standard. Issues and Areas of Non -Conformance: Staff suggests that the following issues or interpretive questions have been identified during this conceptual review that should be addressed by the Applicant and considered by the Planning Commission — to determine compliance with the standards and whether variances will be required - prior to the Applicant proceeding with the design development of the plans: Minturn Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 7 of 17 • Maximum Lot Size • Maximum or Total Overall Site Coverage • Building Height and Bulk Plane Step Back on Williams Street • Maximum Building Facade Width • Snow Storage Staff Recommendation: Staff suggests that the Conceptual Plans for 161-171 Main Street generally comply, or can be revised to ensure compliance, with applicable provisions of Chapter 16 and the Town of Minturn Design Standards (Appendix `B') of the Minturn Municipal Code. However, staff suggests there are several issues and areas of non-conformance that must be addressed prior to approval of the conceptual plans. In the event the Planning Commission, acting as the Design Review Board, is inclined to approve the conceptual plans, staff respectfully suggests the following recommended conditions: 1. The Applicant provide detailed calculations for setback areas and corresponding temporary snow storage areas. Snow storage areas are to be designed in coordination with Town staff to ensure that long-term snow storage and removal strategies do not adversely impact neighboring properties, vehicle maneuverability within public rights-of-way, or long-term Town operational costs. 2. The Applicant shall apply for variance(s) from the strict interpretation of certain standards of Chapter 16 as determined necessary by the Planning Commission and Town staff prior to or concurrent with any Final Plan application. Alternatively, the Applicant shall revise the plans to ensure that no variances are required prior to continuing with Conceptual Plan review. Bill Pierce shared a presentation, with renderings, of the proposed building design and explained the overall intent of the design. Scot H. asked about setback from front of building to the 3rd level — Mr. Pierce responded that it's 25 ft. The intent is to have it look like 4 different buildings on the same site. Public Comment: Matt Scherr, 511 Main St Mr. Scherr noted that this project could invoke both excitement and fear with our residents. He spoke about the approach of the project (one section at a time vs. an overall master plan for the 100 block). Feels that doing one at a time can be scary, as you don't know what's ahead. Recommends approaching it as a master plan scenario with input from the community. Also feels that a master plan / road map would help the developer to better understand what Minturn residents and business owners would like to see. Minturn Planning Commission June 12,2019 Page 8 of 17 Commented that change has been inevitable for downtown Minturn. He noted that having one partner for all of this potential development could be a good thing, but one partner can also be scary if things don't go well. Gusty Kinakis, 201 Pine St. Big concern is parking. 6 units, 13 parking spots. No real guest parking. Asked about snow storage, did not see that in the plans. He feels the mass of this building is too large for the footprint and does not fit the character. Commercial parking would need to be street parking. On street parking would be quickly used up just by employees of the commercial / retail space. Brian Sipes, 102 Nelson Ave Overall, he feels the concept has great bones. Just feels it needs some editing and refinement. Regarding building design, he keeps coming back to authenticity. Minturn is a conglomerate of several small, simple buildings. Minturn is much more Hemmingway than Shakespere. (Could be simplified). Made some suggestions regarding how to simplify and how to make better use of the space (could make better use of the corner at Main & Nelson), more connection to Main St. Suggested different sizes of the front buildings. Introduce asymmetrical elements to emphasize passageway. Review window and door openings / patterns. Larry Stone, 201 Main St. Also recommended corner access / accentuate the corner. Would like to see the front setback be less than 10 feet. Would like to see the commercial space come out more. Would like to see balconies for the residences. Parking — Would like to see the developer work with the town re. a transportation plan in lieu of parking. Morgan Landers, 520 Pine St. Feels that change is good, if done right. She likes the attention to the corner also. 4 key areas: Recommend that the bulk plane ratios are more equal, make better use of site (Possible build plane variance) Minium Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 9 of 17 3rd floor patios are too big. Could use as Limited Common Elements, for commercial. Mid -piece of the building — central corridor / passageway — doesn't feel that it adds much. Maybe a corner reorientation vs. this. Materials — good, beautiful materials. Very similar to Mollie G and other buildings in the area, so maybe differentiate more. Identify historical elements to accentuate, but not monotonous. Master Plan vs. one off Mentioned benefits and drawbacks of going with a master plan. If we wait for a master plan, it could take a very long time, and it's possible that building codes could change during that time. Kelly Toon 531 Main St. The two buildings that are being removed are two of the most iconic buildings in Town. Those buildings (with the water tower in back) are frequently photographed. Would like to see a design that really fits the town, and captures that same character. Also agrees with earlier comments regarding the center area. Would like to see more public spaces / outdoor areas that create interaction opportunities. Also brought up parking concerns, as the parking area around the current buildings is always full. Is there enough space for a turnaround area? Opportunity to direct traffic? Also asked about snow storage. Brought up the Market. (Also suggested moving or expanding the market to along the river / along Eagle St). Would also like to salvage some pieces of the existing Mountain Pedaler Building. Also brought up that the lack of creation of a historic district in town was partially due to the parking challenges (it was always thought that the lack of parking / parking restrictions would limit redevelopment of some of these older buildings). Doesn't want it to look like the Riverwalk in Edwards. Randy Milhoan, 141 Williams St The entryway between the two buildings — reminds him of the space on the south side of Shop and Hop. Rarely gets used. Lynn Figer, '344 Eagle St. Feels it's important that this building be exciting, something special to replace the existing buildings. Minturn Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 10 of 17 Making it more interesting from a massing standpoint, making the building feel alive from a design standpoint. Doesn't want it to feel like the Riverwalk in Edwards. Staff Comments: Scot. H. noted his concerns, which are also expressed in the staff report: Maximum lot size - 7500 sf. Proposed lot size is 9600 sf Would require a variance, if not modified into smaller lots. Total site coverage — 90% total coverage allowed (80% building, 10% impervious). Currently at about 97%. Guidelines call for a minimum of 10% of setback areas to be landscaped. Building height / bulk plane issues — Existing code / design standards — resulting in wasted space? Maximum building fagade width Snow storage needs to be addressed, as well as ice and snow shed. Planning Commission Comments and Questions: Jeff A. thanked the public for attending and offering constructive feedback. Suggested that the applicant listen to and evaluate those comments. Agrees with utilizing the corner more. This project is the guinea pig (first proposed development for the downtown area), so that makes it challenging. Brought up concerns regarding both parking and snow storage. Greg S. — Also thanked the public for their comments. Very helpful to hear this input. Also thanked Bill Pierce and the developer for the level of information provided at the conceptual level. Asked for clarification with regard to parking. The plan calls for 8 off-site parking spaces (exceeds the allowed number of 6). Scot H. referenced the code. Off site parking cannot exceed 6 spaces (on Main St specifically) but those spots can be counted toward total parking requirements. Minturn Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 11 of 17 Greg S. Loading dock — 2 required for a building over 10,000 s£ (with current code) Parking — identifies tandem parking being allowed for single family uses, but not multi family. Concerns with not having sufficient parking for commercial use. These items will need variances, or some other way to address them. Overall, is concerned that the building is too big (lot size and lot coverage). Regarding character — Would like to see a nod to the existing buildings, or some reuse of materials, etc. More character, more spirit. Brought up visitor comments regarding Minturn being: charming, quaint, unique, etc. Doesn't want Minturn to look like another Colorado town. Want to maintain our authenticity. Expressed the importance of this project, with setting the tone for the rest of the downtown development. Greg. G — thanked everyone for their input. Expressed how emotional this can be for the Town given the attachment to the existing buildings. Also thanked the applicant for their efforts thus far. The pattern of the building reads like 3 sections (not 4). He would like to see it read like 4, so it appears as 4 lots (to fit within the small, historic downtown). Passthrough — lives at 421 Main which has a passthrough, and he loves it. If you can see it clearly from one end to the other, he encourages it. It also creates an advantage of allowing glass around those commercial spaces in that area. Residential storage — We all want to see new businesses come to town, and existing businesses continue to be successful. Not sure how many commercial businesses will be looking for space of this size, with the parking limitations. Asked about trash enclosure. Simplicity — Architecture in town is not complex. This proposed building in the back reads to him as a little too complicated (Similar to a Breckenridge condominium). Minturn Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 12 of 17 Burke H. Feels that the applicant now has plenty of feedback from public. Building Mass is his primary concern. Also snow storage, also mentioned the residential storage. Balance between residential and commercial is a tough economically feasible for both the developer and the Town. both the commission and the one. The project has to be Would like to see commercial that will be successful here in Town. Parking poses a real challenge, as does the size of the commercial space. Handicapped parking — can residential and commercial share? What is the requirement? It was confirmed that Building is currently proposed to have 1, which meets the requirement. Roof pitch — snow / ice coming off the roof. Not sure how far the overhangs go into a setback / path of travel. This is a safety issue, and should be closely looked at. Also brought up single phase vs. master plan as it relates to downtown. Not sure what is the best, but feels that if we wait for a master plan we may be waiting for a long time. He feels this is a good start that we can work with. Lauren D. High level thoughts: 1 — echoes Brian's comments regarding the front square buildings, to make them look more interesting 2 — Structure size does appear very large and out of context with the downtown area 3 — Variance issue — particularly concerned about approving variances for downtown and where that could lead down the road. Would prefer to see this come in, if possible, without a variance needed. (What is the hardship, have all options been explored?). Lynn T. — Appreciates that the applicant tools the code requirements, and the Planning Commission suggestions, regarding two stories, with building up to 3 behind. Feels the building is too big in scale. Commented on Buena Vista, as she was there twice recently. Main St. was hopping when she was there. Mintum Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 13 of 17 Noted some specific buildings and areas as examples. But it still had an old, authentic feel. Even with all the growth, it maintained it's character. Tom Warren: Noted that Buena Vista is very lenient on parking and building code. They have revised a lot of their regulations in recent years to allow for more commercial opportunity. They were hurting after the mine closed and they needed commercial development and growth. Minimal economic activity in the 90s, but over time they have loosened regulations in order to attract development. They have had dramatic growth over the last 5 years in particular. Were also able to develop recreational amenities, etc. due to this increased sales tax revenue. Also explained that the existing Mountain Pedaler and Grammy's Attic buildings are not viable for renovation, due to the state of disrepair. Greg. S — Wants to see as much commercial as possible, so reiterated how important it is to figure out the parking situation. Suggested a parking and traffic study before and after as a possible method for parking reduction. Mr. Warren discussed how urban areas are developing with very little parking, due to current trends and needs. However, mountain communities such as ours, that is more challenging (less access to public transportation, area is more spread out, etc). Scot H. inquired if Buena Vista has a Downtown Development Authority. Mr. Warren responded that Buena Vista does not, Salida does (but they are very different communities). Lynn T. — brought up the market (the back of the building — with having residences, and parking, in the back — you lose market space, and also noted the general narrowness). Concerned about Nelson Ave right of way and provision / maintaining adequate drive lanes for two-way traffic. Also noted the importance of having employees of downtown businesses not park by / in front of the businesses. The 2 hour parking limit has helped with this. Also mentioned snow storage, and stated that the building character needs some refinement. Mintum Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 14 of 17 Tom Warren also spoke regarding taking down the Mountain Pedaler building. He doesn't like the idea of tearing down old buildings either, but this building is in disrepair and is not safe. They are willing to salvage any materials that are salvageable (possibly some flooring, stained glass window, etc). Willing to repurpose if possible. Kelly Toon spoke again, discussed the fake fagade concept / origin of that, and actually likes the feel of it. Lynn T. would like to see more landscaping, and maybe some flower boxes at the windows. Bill Pierce addressed the group again. Landscape vs. hardscape, 10 ft. of setback, 4 ft of sidewalk. Would prefer to see contained landscaping vs. lawns, etc that will get trampled. Also mentioned restrictions with going into setbacks and addressed parking again. The planning commission also discussed outdoor areas — seating, etc. Noted Garduno's example. The idea of a parking garage was brought up again. (Possibly north of Eagle River Inn). Scot H. noted that in conversations with the Railroad, it does not sound like they would consider a parking structure on the railroad property near the Turntable (but a development in the RR property that is for sale, something could possibly be incorporated). Bill Pierce thanked everyone for their input. Randy Milhoan spoke again, and recommends figuring out a long term plan for the challenges of- Parking, £Parking, snow removal, trash removal. These items are already an issue for the entire 100 block, and needs to be considered during all phases of planning with regard to redevelopment of this area. Scot H. suggested a meeting with MR Minturn, Pierce Architects, Town of Minturn, Randy Milhoan, Waste Mgmt, etc. Minium Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 15 of 17 Greg S. — Is it worth looking at doing a level of structured parking in conjunction with a pedestrian Area? Possibly build into the hillside? Kelly Toon suggested alternate location for loading dock. Planning Commission took a 5 minute recess at 8:50pm. Resumed at 8:55pm. 7. Projects • RAT (River Access Trails) Committee Updates o No updates at this time. Will have an update at next meeting. • Chapter 16 Revisions Background: In the fall 2017, the Town retained the services of Hunn Planning & Policy to assist the Town Planner in re -organizing and updating certain provisions and sections of Chapter 16 - Zoning, of the Minturn Municipal Code. The objectives of the project were: 1. Eliminate or combine multiple character areas and zone districts (without changing any allowed uses or other zoning or development standards) to reduce the overall number of both character areas and zone districts. 2. Provide one consolidated use table (rather than one use table for each separate character area) and one consolidated table of development standards and dimensional limitations. 3. Re -organize the format of Chapter 16 to allow for more user friendly, logical navigation by staff and end users. 4. Provide new or combined zone districts; the direction fi•om staff at that time was to migrate away from existing, catch-all descriptors (i.e. "residential," "commercial") which con-esponded with the overarching character areas (e.g. "Old Town Character Area - Residential Zone District") and towards new categories such as "R-1" or "C-1" based on the type and character of the zone district and based on existing uses occun- ing within existing zone districts. 5. Provide new zoning maps, color coded to con-espond with the newly created zone district descriptors. Minium Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 16 of 17 Note: At that time, the consultant was specifically directed not to assess Chapter 16 for deficiencies or to recommend changes to text, policy or procedures set forth in Chapter 16. Also, the consultant was specifically directed not to change any existing uses, development standards, or design standards. From November 2017 to April 2018, several tasks were completed toward the overall project objectives: 1. Draft zone district mapping and a proposed outline of a new Chapter 16 was presented to a joint work session of the Planning Commission and Town Council in February 2018. 2. New zoning maps were created with assistance from the Eagle County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Department. 3. A draft of the new Chapter 16, a new use table and dimensional limitation table were produced and provided to the Town in April 2018, but were never presented to the Planning Commission prior to the departure of the Town Planner. Since starting with the Town in June 2018, the Town Planner has worked with the code during the review of several proposals, and has also had the invaluable opportunity to work with the Planning Commission to better understand what changes the Commission desires in any update to Chapter 16. Importantly, it has become clear to staff that the desire of the Town- Planning Commission and Town Council -is to complete a thorough update and of the code rather than to simply re -organize the format and create new zone district maps. To this end, staff has contracted with a private planning consultant -Tl Dublac, of Community Planning Strategies - who will be assisting the Town Planner in conducting a code assessment and facilitating a public review of any updates proposed. The following is a general outline of the project tasks and schedule: PHASE I- CODE ASSESSMENT AND CHAPTER 16 RE -ORGANIZATION (JUNE- AUGUST 2019 • Re -introduce project and progress made (June 12 PC Meeting) • Examine zone districts and uses to ensure that zone districts accommodate or encourage correct uses in the right locations and refine draft zone district sections (text and use tables) and mapping accordingly. • Refine zone district descriptions (inclusive of previous character area language where appropriate and desired) to ensure that the intent and purpose of each district is clearly communicated. Minium Planning Commission June 12, 2019 Page 17 of 17 PHASE II- DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN STANDARDS ASSESSMENT {AUGUST -OCTOBER 20191 • Examine and refine site development and design standards for all zone districts. • Examine and refine supplemental standards to ensure that standards listed in different areas of Chapter 16 do not conflict, are not redundant, and that they support the goals and policies of the Town. • Refine development and design standard language to improve end user understanding of the purpose or policy intent of certain provisions and restrictions. PHASE III - ADMINISTRATIVE & PROCEDURAL ASSESSMENT {OCTOBER -DECEMBER 20191 • Examine land use review processes and submittal requirements to ensure that procedures are consistent throughout the code; that procedures are clearly communicated and that they provide predictability; and, that procedures and remedies are fair and timely for Town staff and applicants. 8. Planning Director Report General updates on upcoming/ongoing projects: • Housing Plan Updates ■ Open House held on May 2811, ■ May attend 1 or 2 Markets to further engage the public ■ Further evaluating the code as it relates to ADU's, inclusionary housing 9. Future Meetings • June 26, 2019 • July 10, 2019 Noted that a water discussion will take place at the July 17t1i Council Meeting. 10. Adjournment Motion by Greg G., second by Greg S., to adjourn at 9:13pm. Motion passed 6-0. Lxf6Teach, Commission Chair ATTE Scot Hunn, Planning Director