Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 6-26-2019Minturn Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 1 of 16 OFFICIAL MINUTES MEETING OF THE MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION Minturn, CO 81645 • (970) 827-5645 Wednesday, June 26, 2019 Work Session —CANCELLED Regular Session — 6:30pm CxAIR —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 6:33pm. • Roll Call Those present at roll call: Lynn T., Greg S., Jeff A. Lauren D. and Burke H. Greg G. excused absent. Staff Members Present: Town Planner Scot Hunn, Economic Development Coordinator Cindy Krieg, and Town Manager Michelle Metteer. Pledge of Allegiance. Mintum Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 2 of 16 2. Approval of Agenda • Items to be Pulled or Added Motion by Lauren D., second by Greg S., to approve the agenda as presented. Motion passed 54 3. Approval of Minutes • June 12, 2019 One correction was made by Greg S. Motion by Lauren D., second by Jeff A., to approve the minutes of May 22, 2019 as amended. Motion passed 54 4. Public comments on items, which are NOT on the agenda (Smin time limit per person) 5. Planning Commission Comments Jeff A. commented that the flaggers with the construction project have been doing a great j ob. Also wanted to thank Arnold Martinez (Public Works) for his help this week during the construction. 6. Design Review &Land Use Application Public Hearings • 1201 & 1207 U.S. Hwy. 24 —Christiansan Single Family Residence & ADU - Final Plan Review o Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Staff Report Notes: The Applicant, Miners Basecamp, requests Final Plan review of a new, four -bedroom, single-family residence with an attached, two -bedroom Accessory Apartment located at 1201/1207 U.S. Hwy. 24. This is the site of an existing home historically occupied by the Christiansan family. The property recently sold and the Christiansan's existing structures (a single-family structure, Minturn Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 3 of 16 a manufactured home, and multiple accessory structures) will be removed and replaced with the new proposed residence. While the Christansans will no longer own Lot 29, they and their family members will have the right to reside in the new single-family residence and associated accessory dwelling unit planned above a new two -car garage. In the future, a portion of Lot 29 may be sold back to the Christiansans or a long term lease agreement will be put in place to allow the Christiansans to remain on the property. The plans show a one- to two-story, four bedroom single-family residence with an accessory apartment located over a two -car garage. Lot 29 is accessed via the "Vista Barranco Lane" right-of-way, as well as a private "Reciprocal Access and Utility Easement and Emergency and Municipal Service Vehicle Access Easement" recorded September 28, 2011. The plans call for two garage areas — one associated with the primary residence and another provided for the accessory apartment - providing a total of four (4) enclosed parking spaces along with a "gravel parking area" (sized to accommodate two vehicles) located on the south side of the residence. All improvements are located within the boundaries of Lot 29 and no variances are necessary or requested at this time. Two existing, mature trees are slated for removal to accommodate the new structure, and the Applicant has provided a landscape plan demonstrating re -vegetation plans, planting and other landscape improvements in accordance with the requirements of Section 1 &17-140 — Landscape Standards, of the Minturn Municipal Code. The design is fairly contemporary, with simple, traditional gable and shed roof elements and multiple building forms that appear to be contextually appropriate and compatible with the site, as well as neighboring properties and improvements. According to staff s analysis of development standards and dimensional limitations in Section III below, proposed improvements generally meet or exceed the Town's requirements for setback standards, landscaping (re -vegetation details, erosion control details, planting numbers, sizes and locations, and clear vision areas), lot and impervious coverage, as well as maximum building height and parking requirements. However, staff has identified the following minor issues or outstanding review items (discussed in greater detail in Section V below) needing to be addressed prior to or concurrent with building permit application or during the construction process: ❑ Overhead Utility Line ❑ Civil Plan Review by Town Engineer ❑ Roof Eave Encroachments ❑ Snow Storage Area Staff believes that the Applicant has provided a complete, detailed set of plans necessary to complete a thorough final plan review. As a reminder, the Planning Commission has the option to review the proposal as a "conceptual" plan review if the Commission feels that the plans are not sufficient or are in need of revisions and additional review prior to final plan review; or, to recommend Final Plan approval to the Town Council with specific conditions and giving the Applicant and staff clear direction on any recommended revisions to the plans that must be addressed Staff is recommending approval, with conditions. Minnim Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 4 of 16 Issues and Areas of Refinement: Issues or Required Plan Revisions The following issues or areas of refinement have been identified by staff that must be addressed prior to any building permit submittal: ❑ Overhead Utility Line ❑ Civil Plan Review by Town Engineer ❑ Roof Eave Encroachments ❑ Snow Storage Area Overhead Utility Line The survey submitted shows an overhead utility line traversing the eastern portion of the property, from northeast to south west, in the general location of proposed improvements. It appears that this existing line will be buried but the Applicant should clarify the utility plan during the Planning Commission's review. Plans should be revised/clarified, if necessary, with any building permit set of drawings to clearly label how the overhead utility line will be treated. Civil Plan Review Based on the date of submittal of these final plans, staff was not able to coordinate review by the Town's engineering consultant, Intermountain Engineering, prior to drafting this report. Staff suggests that grading, drainage and other engineering related plans appear to meet the requirements of the Town, but that the Town Engineer should review the plans prior to the Applicant creating building permit set of plan documents and, specifically, prior to proceeding to building permit application. Roof Eave Encroachment The plans show a minor encroachment of a roof eave along the western (side yard) setback area. The roof element is associated with a covered patio and the eave does not encroach more than eighteen (18") inches into the side yard setback as permitted Snow Storage Area The site and landscape plans appear to allow for adequate snow storage for the two formal driveway areas. However, the plans should be revised to clearly label all TOWN OF MINTURN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT now storage areas and to provide calculations demonstrating that an area equal to a minimum of 5% of driveway areas devoted to off-street parking is reserved for now storage. Staff Recommendation and Suggested Conditions: Staff suggests that the Final Plans for 1201 & 1207 U.S. Hwy. 24 generally comply with or exceed the applicable provisions and/or minimum standards of Chapter 16 and the Town of Minturn Design Standards (Appendix `B') of the Minturn Town Code. In the event the Planning Commission, acting as the Town of Minturn Design Review Minturn Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 5 of 16 Board, recommends approval of the Final Plans, staff respectfully suggests the following conditions of approval. 1. The Applicant shall revise the plans, if necessary, prior to or concurrent with building permit application, to clearly label and describe how the overhead utility line traversing the building site from northeast to southwest will be treated, and demonstrating that existing utility lines will not be impacted by, or adversely impact, proposed improvements on Lot 29, Z. The Applicant shall work with the Town Planner and Town Engineer to facilitate the review of all civil engineering plans prior to the Applicant creating building permit set of plan documents and, specifically, prior to proceeding to building permit application. 3. The Applicant shall provide an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) or other survey document as part of the framing inspection process to ensure that the maximum encroachment of roof eaves into required setback areas remains at 18 inches. 4. The Applicant shall revise the site and landscape plans to clearly label all snow storage areas and to provide calculations demonstrating that an area equal to a minimum of 5% of driveway areas devoted to off-street parking is reserved for now storage. Bill Reslock (Representative, Reslock &Sullivan LLC) addressed the group, and presented the drawings. Jena Skinner, Applicant Representative, also addressed the group. Questions from Planning Commission: Jeff A. asked for clarification regarding recycled products. Bill R. confirmed that siding would be recycled material that is made up of multiple materials. (Wood -like, but more durable). Does not have a sample of it at this time. Public Comment: Thomas Eubanks .(Gypsum, CO) Present on behalf of Diana Duran Mr. Eubanks inquired as to how wide the lot is, and asked whether utilities would go in on their side (or on the Christiansan side). Ms. Skinner noted that they hope to utilize existing utilities and should not be digging up a lot of area. Mr. Mooney, 1181 Main St. Asked for clarification on the diagram of where the existing trailer is. Minturn Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 6 of 16 Also Asked about the side setback (5 ft). Lynn T. confirmed that it meets current code. Also asked about encroachment. 18" overhang confirmed by Bill R. and Jena S. Long and narrow profile —Asked about future development. It was noted that is not pertinent to the current application. Thomas Eubanks spoke again. He asked about the frill width of the building. 40' confirmed by Bill Reslock. Total lot size was also discussed. They are not touching the easements Scot H. addressed the easements. 24' wide — emergency access and utility easement. Original Duran sub -division had the same easement In 2011, that easement was relocated due to the existing gravel driveway. This new easement agreement attempts to follow that. With the proposed improvements, the easement is to remain clear and free of obstruction (so full use for emergency and utility). Scot H. noted that he has met with Ms. Duran and her attorney (Ruth Borne). And also met with Bill R. and Jena S. Jena Skinner addressed the group. She expressed that it would be relatively easy to move the garage further away from easement boundary line to alleviate any concerns regarding potential encroachment of vehicles parked in driveway. Scot H. addressed the driveways, garage and parking, as it relates to the easement. Scot H. also read Ms. Borne's letter into the record. Scot H. suggested that based on these concerns, that the Planning Commission treat this as a conceptual discussion and request necessary revisions before ruling on a final plan review. Lauren D. inquired about snow storage and overhead power line. Jena S. confirmed that there will be less overhead power line as the obsolete power pole will be removed. Also confirmed will move the garage back, and will ensure that landscaping complies. They are not actually impeding any access to the easement. Mintnrn Planning Commission one 26, 2019 Page 7 of 16 Greg S. noted that he likes that they are providing this ADU, and thanked the applicant for the detailed plans. Stated that he feels the home meets code requirements, and that the private easement agreement is not a matter for Planning Commission. Parking pad next to the house. Greg S. noted that they meet (exceed) parking requirements without this. Jeff A. asked Scot H. to confirm no setback requirement for easements, which was confirmed. Jeff A. also noted that regarding the meters on the back — Xcel won't accept this placement due to snow and ice — will need to be moved. Noted that 2 items from the letter were civil in nature and not for planning commission to decide on (items 2 & 3). Jeff A. noted that he would prefer to take more time to review and see what happens between the two parties. Noted that he'd been approached by some people in town that expressed some concern, Jena confirmed that they will be addressing the concerns brought up, and re -submitting with minor variations. 1978 easements actually overlap (TOM utility easement, plus a few others). Bev Christiansan Currently residing at The Reserve, G103 Have been in Minturn since 1965. Have always used the driveway, the Durans' bought land across from them and made it into Bianca Lane. Live in the double wide trailer, and want to live their lives out in Minturn. Couldn't stay in the trailer, and need an ADA compliant home. They did the 2011 easement because Diana asked them to so she could build a garage. Agreed in order to be good neighbors. Have some old buildings there, and they know that those need to go. Never thought this would be a problem for anybody. She does not feel the easement should keep them from being good neighbors. Ms. Duran does not want anyone on the easement, she treats it as if it's her property. Lyn Kinakis, 248 Main St. When he was on P&Z and Council, it had been stated that if you use an easement, it's grandfathered in. Should be an easement for everyone. At least was that way years ago. Jeff A. asked Diana Duran to speak. Diana Duran, 1211 Main St. The Christiansans' have had several different people living in the red house. Minturn Planning Commission June X 2019 Page 8 of 16 She is not clear• on the exact details of the easement. Would like more time to review. Elmer Christiansen Mentioned that Mr. Mooney has an easement in the back to his property, he was unaware. Had no idea this existed. Closed Public Comment Burke H. Likes the house, hopes they can get it done once the easement concerns are figured out. Likes the driveway the way it is. It's a plus for anyone living along the highway (it services everyone on those lots and is safer than having to back out onto the highway). Meter locations will need to be moved (Xcel). Cannot be under a drip line, even with a box. ADU is a good thing. Siding — Would be careful with regard to the types of recyclable materials and ensure that it's something that will last (starting to see wear with certain recycled products). Jeff A. If you extend the roof on that side to cover the meters, then they could stay. Planning Commission asked Scot H. for direction re. how to address the easement issues. No issue from the applicant's /builders regarding use of the easement. Greg S. reiterated that the issues brought up are between the two parties and not for DRB. However Jena S. did agree that it would be prudent to go back and address the concerns and make minor adjustments to the plans. Scot H. felt that there was mutual agreement that there was some room for• improvement. Landscaping did encroach (foundation did not). Jeff A. asked about whether the easement could be re -drawn. Jena noted that they would be open to that, and would be willing to meet with all parties. Jeff A. also stated that he would like to read and review the easement to better understand. Scot H. noted that he could get a copy to the planning commission. Minhttn Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 9 of 16 Jena S. stated that they will do a color site plan, with minor adjustments to re -present. Lynn T. suggested tabling to the next meeting. Motion by Jeff A., second by Lauren D., to table to the next meeting (July). Motion passed 5A 5 Minute recess taken at 7:40. Reconvened at 7:45. • 161 Main Street —New Mixed Use Building -Continued Conceptual Plan Review Scot H. noted that the applicant has spent significant time revising these plans based on feedback at the last meeting. So he felt it important to get it on the agenda. However, due to time constraints he did not have time to submit an updated staff report. Issues last time with: Lot size /mass /scale Snow storage Have added some green space, have also addressed several other items that were brought up in the last meeting Bill Pierce (Pierce Architects), addressed the group and discussed updates /changes made to the plans. Building coverage is 65% Addressed the passageway —moved it somewhat to make it feel more open. 2400 sf of commercial space, with 8 parking spaces on Main and Nelson Rear setback is 10' Williams is 15' Resident parking is all onsite Softened the corner /angled — to make better use of it Pulled the facade back on the 3rd floor Moved the stairs. Minturn Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 10 of 16 Regarding the old Mountain Pedaler building — discussed that they could do some sort of representation of that building Different materials and colors so it appears as separate buildings vs. one large bung. Public Comment: Jena Skinner: Great to see the window boxes and other changes that were made to the original plans. Tom Sullivan 116 Nelson Ave Concerns —how to exit Nelson (will there be a turnaround)? To get out now, people turn around on the existing property. How can they do parallel parking on the south side of Nelson? The Right of Way is already spoken for. Asked about handicapped bathroom on the first level (no space?) Where will it go? Handicapped parking? Bill Pierce pointed out the handicapped parking. Tom asked about now to access, and when it was answered by Bill Pierce — Tom noted that this explanation is not an answer as it's illegal to do what's being proposed. Economic concerns — is concerned that this could become a project that doesn't work, after lots of money is spent. Concerned that the retail plan in not viable and expectations are not reasonable for Minturn. Feels it is a lose -lose. Also concerned about snow storage. This property is currently used for significant snow storage. Suggested they scale back the building to provide more parking (and snow storage). Closed Public Comment. Mintum Planning Commission one 26, 2019 Page 11 of 16 Planning Commission Comments: Noted the importance of the economics —getting into awin-win for both the owners and the town. Batlnooms —specific bathroom locations for commercial space has not been finalized yet. Parking —Nelson St is a unique situation. It is tough, very difficult to turn around / access that area. More thought should be put into that. Access and traffic flow need to be evaluated. This could be further examined in relation to the scale of the building. Jeff A —Doesn't feel he needs to comment on the design. Looks like some awnings were added to help with snow shed. More of that may need to happen. Is there a slide that shows the property line of the Mollie G. Building /Nelson Ave? Thinks this might be helpful. Also asked about commercial parking — is all allowed to be off site? Asked Scot H. about the code — Scot responded that the code specifically only refers to limitations of offsite parking on Main St. Scot would like to consult the Town Attorney regarding the interpretation. Also asked if we can approve a plan that the parking is in the CDOT Right of Way at Highway 24. Scot H. answered that yes, property owners can park on Main St. Bill Pierce further explained that they did allow for adequate width to allow for maneuvering a car. Scot H. asked for a visual / demonstration of turning radius, etc. Greg S - Noted that some of the public comments from the last meeting included inquiries about a possible master plan. Greg asked if that was addressed at all. He feels it's important that all comments are addressed, regardless of the answer, No right or wrong answer, just wanted to ask about the process for the applicant). Tom Warren — Do not have a Master Plan. Looking at this organically. This is the only current plan on the table. Currently just doing maintenance and cosmetic work (painting, etc) on other properties. If they were to try to do a master plan, it would kill this project as it stands currently. Minturn Planning Commission June 265 2019 Page 12 of 16 Regarding Parking, Greg S. noted that by his interpretation of offsite parking maximum — this does not comply. Code requires 2 loading bays — plan shows 1. Bill —Only over 10,000 sf. With both commercial and residential, they are over 10,000 sf Tandem parking allowed for non-residential and single family, but not multi family? Scot H. questioned the reasoning behind the code requirement and stated that this should be addressed during the code re -write. Overall scale —Greg S. feels that the building is too big. Hoped to see 2 buildings. He is not sure how variances will get done (not sure how a hardship will be proven). Understands the intent of having the building look like 4 different buildings. However, Greg feels that this still looks like 1 huge building. But worried that with scaling back, and with parking challenges, that applicant may scale back the commercial. This building is in the commercial core, so commercial is very integral. Feels there is less cohesiveness with this go -round. Suggests stepping back, building two buildings that meet the code. Feels that would be more appropriate to downtown. Building coverage — 65% (Clarified building coverage vs. lot coverage). Building coverage includes covered parking. Bill Pierce — Regarding parking an tandem park in residential. Greg S. and Lynn T. brought up the winter parking restrictions on Main St. (due to plowing). Greg S. talked further about the intent of the code with regard to maximum lot size and building coverage. He does not feel this current design meets the intent. He agrees that we need both residential and commercial space, but he doesn't want the priority to be on residential. He feels the priority is being placed on residential. Lauren D. — Size —Agrees with Greg S. that it would be hard to find a hardship to get variances approved. Would like to see a plan that does not require a variance. Mintum Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 13 of 16 She appreciates the updates to the plans based on feedback from the planning commission and the public. Also noted that some of the design elements seem forced, to try to accommodate public input. Lynn T — Also agreed that it would be hard to grant a variance based on code (doesn't see where a hardship would come in). Sorry to see that we lost some of the setback. Thinks parking is still an issue. Asked about the Main St. parking (is there a specific # allotted to specific businesses, ie Holy Toledo). Nelson St. —cannot back up onto Williams (it's a one way street). A lot of people who aren't familiar with Town turn onto Nelson and then realize they can't go up the private road or go the wrong way on Williams — so they turn around in the current parking behind Mountain Pedaler. Delivery trucks also need access to the restaurants. Also brought up snow storage. Likes the added landscape. Brought up Tom Wai7en's comments last week re. Buena Vista and their flexibility with parking. She mentioned the size difference in the downtowns. She also commented that when she was recently in BV, she drove around for over 10 minutes to find parking and almost gave up. Tom Warren commented that's a good problem to have in a commercial district. Lynn felt that would be concerning as that would just cause people to leave and not want to come to Minturn. Bill Pierce brought in the Market and commented that we somehow make parking work on Saturdays for the Market (with a few hundred to up to 2000 people coming to the market). He feels that parking is a Town issue, and needs to be looked at. If we have to solve the parking problem at a private level, it will probably never get resolved. Lynn expressed how parking not only affects the commercial businesses, but it affects residents as well. Greg S. reiterated that if the project were submitted according to code (maybe scale back some of the residential) then parking would likely not be an issue. Minhum Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 14 of 16 Greg suggested a parking study first, then do one building based on the results of that — before adding a second building. This could be the driver for the future developments of the 100 block. Tom War1•en — Other creative solutions in other municipalities: Could buy parking passes from the Town, etc Brought up that the younger generation isn't driving as much. Scot H. read the section of code refer7ing to parking study requirements. (Get specific info from Scot). This is for "Uses not listed" Probably another provision that would allow the Town /Planning Commission to require a study. Suggested that it may fall on the Town to absorb the cost to conduct a parking study (possibly incorporating snow storage), on a global level. Tom W. asked if the Planning Commission feels that there is a parking problem in downtown. He noted that he's never had an issue parking downtown. Lauren D. agrees in general. Thinks it's more of an enforcement issue (people not adhering to the 2 hr parking or the parking restrictions during snow plowing, etc). Greg S. is open to talking about parking alternatives. He also agrees that there is not a parking problem in town persay. However, we also have some businesses currently closed and not using parking (Mountain Pedalar closed, CO Mattress only open by appt so not really using parking). Tom W. asked for clarification —should they remove 2 residential units and add more commercial parking? Expressed that the residential is important, but he wants to have viable commercial downstairs that is sought after (to attract residents and also enhance the downtown). Bill Pierce brought up a parking structure /garage again. He recommends that the Town look strongly at this for the future, as this will continue to come up as more development is proposed. Michelle Metteer, Town Manager - Has run the market in the past. We do have parking that spills over into residential and commercial parking somewhat. The 13 days of the summer market are the only days she has seen a parking problem. Minturn Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 15 of 16 She noted that the 2 hr parking requirement was done to help push behavioral changes that we couldn't get business owners and employees to follow on their own. Feels that if we don't change the lead measures (vs. changing the parking itself), then this will continue to be a challenge. Changing the behavior is key. Businesses are cur7ently meeting the code only because of offsite /street parking. The winter parking restrictions were not taken into account when the offsite parking allowances were written into the code. Concerned about going down a path to change logistics, without changing behavior. Tom referenced a recent tourism study (Coloradans will walk several blocks to a destination. The average tourist / visitor will only walk a block and half. Tom also noted that they could start adding parking guidelines into their leases (regarding employee parking). Michelle M. noted that one minute 21 seconds is the average walk time from the Municipal lot to Magustos. Jeff A. — Responding to the question re. whether we have a parking problem. Also does not feel we currently have a parking problem. Not an issue finding parking. His concern is just about the functionality of the building. Scot noted that the Town is working on getting a proposal from Andrew Knudsen with EPS, regarding creating a Downtown Development Authority. This could open up funding opportunities for downtown development. Could also help examine how to be more efficient with our existing infrastructure as it relates to parking and other challenges. 7. Projects • RAT Committee Updates —Will have an update at next meeting � Chapter 16 Revisions Greg S. suggested a joint meeting with town council in the near future to discuss parking. Mintum Planning Commission June 26, 2019 Page 16 of 16 8. Planning Director Report General updates on upcoming/ongoing projects: • Bolts Lake Preliminary Plan — No updates at this time • Housing Plan Updates: ■ Draft housing plan loaded on website, at www.minturn.org ■ Working on a press release to get more public engagement 9. Future Meetings • July 10, 2019 — Will be rescheduled due to expected absences. Proposed date of July 161n • July 24, 2019 (Note: Planning Director absence —recommend cancellation). 10. Adjournment Motion by Greg S., second by Jeff A., to adjourn at 9:45pm. Motion passed 5-0. Ly1�n�'each, Commission Chair ATTEST: Scot Hunn, Planning Director