Loading...
PZC Minutes 112001Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting November 20, 2001 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners Evans, Sipes and Klein. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Approval of Resolution No. 01 -21, East Avon and Town Center Study was moved to the Consent Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Macik had a conflict with the Special Review Use item VIII. V. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the November 6, 2001 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Vice Chairman Karow stated that due to only two commissioners from the November 6, 2001 meeting being present, the meeting minutes from that meeting cannot be approved until the next meeting. B. Approval of Resolution 01 -21, East Avon and Town Center Study Commissioner Wolfe moved to approve Item B on the Consent Agenda. Commissioner McClinton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VI. Design Review - Minor Project A. Lots 9 and 10, Filing 2, Eaglebend Subdivision Project Type: Driveway Applicant/Owner: Paul Miller Address: 4883 and 4915 Eaglebend Drive Eric Johnson, Planning Technician, summarized the staff report and stated the applicant is requesting a driveway for the two lots and that staff is recommending denial. The applicants, Paul Miller and Kurt Schneider, began by stating that one home in this filing does have an individual drive. Mr. Miller stated that these homes were not sited to provide for design of hammerheads. Backing onto the streets occurs at almost all homes in this neighborhood. Mr. Schneider cannot pull into his garage because of the design of the driveways. Millions of homes across the country have driveways that make people back onto the street. Which is greater concern, backing onto the street or into children playing on the driveway? He asked how the maintenance is increased by the addition of the new driveway. Staff responded that the additional driveway and culvert increase the maintenance and snow removal costs for the Public Works department. Also, in this filing there is only one house that has its own driveway all of the other single - family homes share access. In some cases there are three homes that share a single access. Kurt Schnieder stated that safety is his major concern with the kids playing in driveway. Vice Chairman Karow asked what the parking requirements are for these properties. Staff responded that only two spaces are needed per house, which are provided for in the garages. Commissioner Wolfe asked if the new design review guidelines required something different. Staff responded that hammerheads would be required to meet safety requirements. Commissioner Wolfe agreed with staffs recommendation. He stated that the institutional memory was that the development of the single - family homes required shared access to meet the multi - family zoning of the area. Safety of backing out into the street is a concern. Commissioner Macik asked if staff has proposed hammerheads? Staff responded that the Town would entertain revised plans however that would not solve all problems. Commissioner Macik stated if the plans could be revised, he would consider review. Overall, he is not in favor of proposal. Mr. Miller stated that he is just trying to fix mistakes from past developer. Commissioner McClinton said that he supports staffs' comments. Vice Chairman Karow had two issues: the curb cut and the safety issues. He asked if the plans could be revised would engineering still deny another curb cut. He stated that due to Criteria number 2 he cannot support the application. Mr. Miller asked if it is appropriate to have people park perpendicular to the garage. Vice Chairman Karow stated that this is how the units were designed and they knew that when they purchased the properties. Commissioner Wolfe stated that the design of the area is similar to what the applicant has. For practical purposes the sites are not useable for the type of vehicles that the applicants have. Commissioner Macik stated that there are other design solutions besides new curb cut. Commissioner Wolfe moved to deny the application. Commissioner Macik seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Minutes of P &Z Meeting November 20, 2001 Page 2 VII. CONCEPT REVIEW - PUD A. Lot 52, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Project Type: Rezoning for Two Single Family Units on Duplex Lot Applicant: Brian Vedder Address: 2470 Saddle Ridge Loop Tambi Katieb, Planner II, summarized the staff report. The applicant wants to provide affordable single - family homes according to the application, and allowing the lot split will permit the builder to half the land costs for each single family dwelling. Staff had informed applicant about the Towns policy of splitting lots for development several months prior to this hearing, and advised the applicant of the previous Town Council Resolution 91 -17. The applicant still wanted to ask for Town input on this concept. Brian Vedder thanked the Commission for their time. There are many reasons that this makes sense. Mr. Vedder went over the various sketches, and discussed the better site design that would occur building two single - family homes rather than one duplex on this lot. Commissioner Wolfe asked what exactly do you want to do with the lot that requires this split of the duplex? I'm not sure the argument regarding affordability has any relevance. Vice Chairman Karow supported this comment. Brian Vedder, there are many justifications for this concept: the shape of the lot (pie shape) and slope of lot, there are only so many ways that property can be developed. Duplexes are typically linear so if the building is aligned with slope there will be great disturbance to the lot in addition to two driveway access points. Designing the duplex along the slope means that the people are in each other's yards. We are trying to think'out of the box', since most of Wildridge is comprised of duplexes. Vice Chairman Karow, that is what duplexes are supposed to be (sharing a front yard), and that is what Wildridge was originally zoned for. It was never intended to be a single - family only subdivision. Brian Vedder said his enthusiasm is that there are too many duplexes in Wildridge. Splitting the two units creates an open view through site. Trees remain undisturbed. Each home is separate from the other. The plans that have been submitted are just sketches, and don't necessarily represent the final design. Commissioner Wolfe, my personal opinion is that access off of the road is not really possible. Access must come from the adjacent lot, which you have apparently provided for through the platting of the adjacent lot (Lot 51). Tambi Katieb confirmed this access easement for the Commission. Commissioner Wolfe said the reality of Council Resolution 91 -17 states that this type of development is not to be considered. This application will increase mass on the site. The second option is the best as shown (a duplex with a single access from Lot 51). Commissioner Macik generally agreed with Commissioner Wolfe. A duplex would work on this property. Access from south is not preferable. Staff interjected that an easement from the adjacent property is provided. As for the affordability argument, a duplex is cheaper to build and provides a more appropriate affordable housing solution. Wouldn't single - family homes be more Minutes of P &Z Meeting November 20, 2001 Page 3 expensive? He was not in favor of this, it is just not appropriate and there is no good argument for it. Commissioner McClinton, you are trying to change the scope of Wildridge. Trying to split the lot into two single - family homes is not appropriate. Vice Chairman Karow said this resolution from council says no, and beyond the resolution, it is just not appropriate and would set precedent. From the design stand point this could work, however, we are not allowed to consider this due to Resolution 91 -17. Wildridge is primarily a duplex community. Duplexes help keep the mass of housing down in Wildridge. Duplexes help create more open space by clustering homes, and they also are more affordable than single - family homes. Single- family homes are not a local resident product, especially not for half a million dollars. Brian Vedder, on July 30, 1991, council approved a property split. Tambi Katieb, during research there have been several memos regarding this proposal. Usually down zoning is the only type of approval we have allowed. This application is not asking for down zoning. Commissioner Macik informed Mr. Vedder that it is not a burden to have to build a duplex. If you are denied, then you can appeal to Council. A duplex will work fine on this lot and two single - family residences are not needed. I could afford a duplex but not a single family. The single - family homes are not more affordable. There are creative ways to design a duplex on this lot. Mr. Vedder said this project would benefit Wildridge. The topography is the main reason for this proposal. I'm trying to design something 'out of the box'. I'm trying to be creative. Commissioner Wolfe said this property allows for a great opportunity for design creativity. I support access from adjacent lot for a duplex on this lot. Steve Olson, owner, thanked the Commission for their input and said this is obviously not something that the Commission can support. He will direct Mr. Vedder to initiate a duplex design for the lot. Thanks for your time. Vice Chairman Karow, the Commission would support the drive access from Lot 51. The Commission will not take any action for concept review. VIII. SPECIAL REVIEW USE - Public Hearing Applicant Has Requested to Table A. Lot 67/68, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Project Type: Automobile Gas Station & Convenience Store Applicant: TAB Associates Owner: Coultier Properties Address: 40 Nottingham Road Tambi Katieb, Planner II, stated that staff requires additional information which requires the applicant to seek a tabling of this file until at least the first meeting in December. Vice Chairman Karow stated that this has been tabled. Minutes of P &Z Meeting November 20, 2001 Page 4 IX. OTHER BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 01 -21 East Avon and Town Center Study B. Staff Approvals: None C. Sign Permits Lot 22, Block 2, Chapel Square 240 Chapel Square, Unit B -117 "The Bellflower" X. ADJOURN Commissioner Wolfe moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mack seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Respectfully submitte Eric Johnson' Acting Recording Secretary APPROVED: December 4, 2001 Chris Evans Chairman L r Secretary Minutes of P &Z Meeting November 20, 2001 Page 5