This transcript was exported on Feb 03, 2020 - view latest version here. Speaker 1: OK. And then we'll just move on to the action item, which is a consideration of preliminary planned unit development. Plus, SRU, Special Review Use. O application, include 6, 16-60-A for both building size and number of units proposed, indeed allowing architectural features, to receive the maximum building height, for an elevator shaft. This will be a public hearing. The property has been posted, and have letters been sent to residents? Speaker 2: They were actually sent a week early. [crosstalk 00:00:44] It was an accident, but- Speaker 1: All right, well then- Speaker 2: Fortuitous. Speaker 1: We will get ready for the presentation then. Speaker 2: I can open up the application [crosstalk 00:00:53] Speaker 1: Are you the spokesperson? Speaker 3: Yes [crosstalk 00:00:53], he is. Speaker 2: Sure. Before you is an application for a preliminary PUD, and as a reminder, that's a one-stop for the Planning Commission. So, what comes out of this review will guide this applicant in the future, in the next year, pending approval, or approval with conditions to move forward. So, this is a preliminary planned unit development, and it includes, technically, three Special Review Uses but, two special review uses that pertain to section 16-60. That is, requires additional Special Review Uses. Speaker 2: So, it enumerates those additional Special Review Uses and, of those, 16-60A, is for both the building size, which exceeds 8,000 square feet, and the number of ... the amount of density that's proposed. So, it's kind of, an either-or. They actually meet both of those conditions, that they would be above that size and the density proposed, over four units. Over four units, they're proposing 32. Speaker 2: And, the second Special Review Use, is section 16-60B. And that allows 4 things that pop up above the building height. In this case, the elevator shafts are intending to exceed the maximum building height. All these properties are in the central business district zone. Speaker 2: The properties were noticed. I put a notice, by the vacant lot on 3rd Street. So, Tom and Sally Grand, own 108 and 118 East 3rd Street. That's lots one through four. Or, excuse me, I think it's 40 and 43 of lot two. And then, the other two lots are 101 East 2nd Street, that's owned by David Sites, who's here, and 115 Presentation - 8:2:19, 9.55 AM (Completed 08/03/19) Page 1 of 13 Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Feb 03, 2020 - view latest version here. East 2nd Street. That's owned by Ron Beetham, and that used to be the old Ned Feed, and it's across from the current Ned Feed. Speaker 2: Ron Mitchell, is the managing member of the Nederlands central business district re-development LLC, and he is the applicant proposing this in conjunction and on behalf of these property owners. The plan proposal includes 32 residential units, with average apartment size under 800 square feet. Some units are about 600 square feet. It's intended to serve a range of household incomes. Speaker 2: There are, intending to be three commercial businesses on the street level. Two of those anchor businesses, are the Animal Hospital across the street, and Hair by Tracy. I actually made a mistake in the EM, and I only said that Hair by Tracy. But that was incorrect, and Ron Mitchell did point that out to me today. Speaker 2: There was one other mistake in the EM, it said we'd talk about this on January 25th. Not true, tonight, June 26th. I fixed those things online so that they're correct for posterity, but I didn't re-send that to you. Speaker 2: So, continuing on, three commercial businesses at the street level, which would include 14 garages, 17 open-air parking spaces. Total square footage of all lots combined is 28,789 square feet. This is in the central business district, which does not have a minimum lot area, per dwelling unit required. So, it's basically based on the proposal. Speaker 2: The narrative indicates 10% of those residential units, so three units are to be dedicated to work-force housing, which is based on an incentive-based plan. Which, is basically housing rent reduction over the first four years, and then at the fifth year, it'd be paying market rate. The intention is to create a mixed-use structure, with businesses and residences to address the lack of commercial and housing units, while celebrating the distinctive nature of Beaver Creek, and revitalizing the neighborhood. Speaker 2: There were a number... Are you guys able to hear me out there? Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 4: You just didn't mention the third business. Speaker 3: It's not known yet. Speaker 2: It is unknown. Sorry about that. Yeah, that was not specified. Speaker 2: And then, there were, specific concerns with respect to this application. I did have some public come in, to review the application and review the narrative. I didn't hear anything back, potentially, but I had folks who said they would Presentation - 8:2:19, 9.55 AM (Completed 08/03/19) Page 2 of 13 Transcript by Rev.com
This transcript was exported on Feb 03, 2020 - view latest version here. definitely be at this meeting to attend, and had some feedback to give. So, I will let them do that themselves. But I will note, there is some consistency with the comprehensive plan, and, number of the elements that were noted in the comprehensive plan, were definitely met. Speaker 2: And then there were a number of concerns, from different departments, to include, Public Works. There were considerations like fire flow, adding a second covert on Snyder Street. Repaving Snyder Street, and a portion of 3rd Street, adjacent to the development, Adding a sidewalk that is ADA, and concrete curb and gutter. They wanted more explanation about parking lifts. Speaker 2: Understanding utility capacity analysis, is a big concern that was mentioned by Public Works and Utilities. Noting the existing water and sewer capacity needs to be evaluated for the number of units proposed. There may be capacity limitations at the town's wastewater treatment facility. Treatment plant may need to be upgraded to accept more volume. Speaker 2: There were also questions about irrigation and trying to understand those things. The Fire Department had some considerations, like, desiring a hydraulic water model of the site and understanding building materials. Speaker 2: Staging. Obviously their concerns are mainly pertaining to access. Speaker 2: S0 of those concerns, I did let the applicant know those concerns ahead of time. He provided an addendum to his narrative, which you see in your packet, which included all the information on building facades, that addition. And then he addressed, concerns that were given to him from, the Department. Speaker 2: So, I will answer any questions that you may have, but that is going to sum it up for me. Speaker 1: I thought it was a very complete, thorough package. Let's hear, if there's any questions, otherwise maybe we should hear from everybody then, try to snap. Does anybody have any questions just about the [inaudible 00:07:20], that she just went over? Speaker 5: I just want to say, great staff work. That was excellent analysis, and they really laid out the issues, clearly. Speaker 2: Thank you. Speaker 5: When I heard the number of pages in the packet, I was dreading it. But it all, easily digestible. Speaker 2: Thank you. Presentation - 8:2:19, 9.55 AM (Completed 08/03/19) Page 3 of 13 Transcript by Rev.com
Recommend
More recommend
