Loading...
PZC Minutes 02-03-2004 (2)Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission February 3, 2004 Council Chambers Town of Avon Municipal Building 400 Benchmark Road I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Trueblood. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There are no additions or amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Karow disclosed a conflict of interest with: Item VI, Master Sign Program, A. Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Chapel Square MSP — deferred submittal, 220 — 240 Chapel Place, PUD 21 and Variance Lot 7; Item VII, PUD Amendment /Sketch Plan Subdivision, A. Lots 21 &30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, 2967 June Creek & 2631 Bear Trap, Resolution No. 04 -08; and, Item VIII, Variance Applications, A. Lot 7, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, 3038 Wildridge Road, Resolution No. 04 -07. V. Consent Agenda Commissioner Karow motioned for the approval of the Meeting Minutes from the January 6, 2004, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -0 with Commissioner Evans abstaining as he was not present at the last meeting. VI. Master Sign Program A. Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Chapel Square MSP — deferred submittal 220 — 240 Chapel Place Applicant: Greg Gastineau, Timberline Management This is the second half of the new proposed Master Sign Program (MSP) application from Greg Gastineau. The first half of this application (tenant and arcade signs) was approved at the January 6th Commission meeting. Being reviewed with this submittal is the monument and banner signs for Chapel Square. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Didier questioned the piece meal effort on the part of the applicant regarding this sign approval FAPlanning & Zoning Commission \Minutes \2004 \020304.doc Page 1 of 10 completeness. Chairman Evan did not believe acting on one small portion of this application was appropriate and believed tabling was beneficial. Commissioner Neville moved to table this application and Commissioner Didier seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 -0. VII. PUD Amendment /Sketch Plan Subdivision - PUBLIC HEARING A. Lots 21 &30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision 2967 June Creek & 2631 Bear trap Resolution No. 04 -08 Owners /Applicants: Shane & Heather Bohart, George & Patricia Plavec This is a PUD Amendment application pertinent to Lots 21 and 30 Block 2 properties located within Wildridge Subdivision. The landowner of Lot 30 is requesting to re- subdivide the property from a single 5.76 -acre parcel into 6 separate residential parcels, thereby increasing the residential development rights from 2 to 6 dwelling units. The newly created five lots would be accessed exclusively via an extension of June Creek Road. The owner of Lot 21 is requesting to re- subdivide the property from a single 3.84 -acre parcel into four separate residential parcels thereby increasing the residential development rights from 2 to 4 dwelling units. These newly created lots would also gain access from June Creek Road. This agenda item is a Public Hearing allowing for public input. Ruth Borne presented the Staff Report after thanking the audience for their attendance and encouraged public presence at future Town Council Meetings. Staff has received 8 letters of support including the applicant, George Plavec, who owns 6 properties. All letters have been provided to Planning and Zoning members. We have received a petition signed by 97 people opposing this application. We have received 33 letters written by homeowners and people in the community opposing this PUD. Failure to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and its' up zoning of the area has warranted staff to seek denial of this application. Chairman Evans mentioned the receipt of packets today by the applicant that will not be taken into account for this review. The process clearly states that all applications are due two weeks prior to the meeting and materials handed 25 minutes prior to the meeting can not be adequately reviewed. Ruth Borne clarified the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission is for recommendation to the Avon Town Council and Council is the decision maker for this application. Shane Bohart presented this application. Incorrect Public Notices were initially sent out and second sets of Notices were mailed and were not received by all appropriate residents, which caused misunderstanding. He explained inaccuracies such as the dwelling unit rights. Whereas some property owners built single - family homes on duplex lots, it afforded the return to the Town of said F: \Planning & Zoning Commission \Minutes \2004 \020304.doc Page 2 of 10 dwelling unit rights totaling 15 to date. Mr. Bohart mentioned that he had made repeated requests for the review of this application, submitted on December 17, 2003, and that the meeting did not take place until January 30, 2003. He did not believe he had sufficient time to discuss all the issues with staff. Mr. Bohart voiced his disagreement with many aspects of the Staff Report and sent it to his legal counsel for review. Mr. Bohart then proceeded to read the summary paragraph from his attorney's office addressing the PUD and its need for approval. "In conclusion, I see no basis in the PUD Amendment Report or in Sketch Plan Report from Staff and P & Z... While there are a handful of technical issues that need to be resolved, there is no indication that those issues are of a nature that could conclude the successful resolution given the preliminary plan and final plat process. In fact, they are precisely the kind of technical issues that are typically the subject of further refinement during those processes as the level of engineering detail decreases." Mr. Bohart explained how he came up the idea and its design; how it is an economic advantage to the Town of Avon in water tap fees, property tax, building permit fees, transfer tax fees, etc.; the creation of a paved access road to the trail on Forest Service Land and environmental benefits for June Creek. He discussed his "20" reasons why this application has merit as he presented in his information packet. Mr. Bohart desired to have entered into the record an engineer's list that addressed the Town's Engineer's concerns list. Chairman Evan reminded Mr. Bohart that new material could not be entertained at this time. Mr. Bohart said he wanted it referenced into the record. Mr. Bohart then brought to light other lots that increased their dwelling unit and their precedent to his application. He proceeded to show his map with properties and their dwelling unit rights designations and density. Mr. Bohart revisited the financial benefits to the Town of Avon. He stated that it is not a matter of up zoning but of using available dwelling units. Mr. Bohart and his partner, George "Tripp" Plavec, would pave the access road, finance the signs needed for the new trailhead and would place special assessments to the new homeowners on this application to finance the road and thus would be a zero burden financially to the town. They are willing to spend $35,000 for the Community Park and $3000 to the Forest Service for signage package and parking improvements. He mentioned the implications of additional traffic in the area and he did not believe it was an issue. Mr. Bohart, in talking with residents, was willing to deduct the number of residences to be planned on his lot. He requested of Planning and Zoning Commission to judge this project based on intellect and not emotion. Prior to opening the meeting to the public, Chairman Evans voiced a need to provide some clarifications. Chairman Evans said that there were a couple of comments made by Mr. Bohart that while he was trying to correct what he saw as inaccuracies in information given out, Chairman Evans saw as somewhat FAPlanning & Zoning Commission \Minutes \2004 \020304.doc Page 3 of 10 inaccurate in the way they were presented. In order to cut comments down on them, he wanted to clarify them. Chairman Evans began with while there were seeking an increase of 6 development units, there was reference made to "I have one up here and I have another one down here ". Chairman Evans commented that Mr. Bohart had two development rights as far as a duplex is concerned and did not have a right on either lot to put two single family homes on each as they exist right now. This would be a totally separate application. The issue is not 'we can put two single family homes on each lot now and are only asking for six more'. The easement on private property as mentioned as a hardship to the applicants is not that unique of a situation or is it a surprise to anyone. The easement existed prior to the individual purchase of the lands. And, the giving back of the development units or rights, which is probably what got a lot of people to attend this evening's meeting, were items addressed as vacated and not purported to be vacated or not built upon since a single family home was built, ones that were actually down -zoned over the last few years. These were given back as a consideration for the applications themselves and do not sit in a pool to be given out as the Town sees fit. Public Hearing is opened. Jerold Miramonte, 4081 West Wildridge, and share a property line with one of the applicants (Lot 30). Mr. Miramonte described his premise for purchase of his property. He complimented staff's denial recommendation and thanked Ruth Borne for her insight. Tim Savage, 2685 Bear Trap, voiced his opinion to deny this application in its entirety. He mentioned that, in the last 10 years, 81 people have bought lots in Wildrdige. He stated that this application was about the applicant making a "boatload" of money and not about social and economical benefit for the residents and the Town of Avon. He felt it is the job of Planning and Zoning Commission to protect the integrity of "his" neighborhood. Gregg Barrie is opposed to the up zoning of lots in Wildridge. He believes that the applicant has a right to develop this lot as a duplex. He was opposed to a development, which up zones existing lots in the PUD. The PUD is based on varying lots sizes and densities, avoiding steep slopes and the preservation of open space between the homes. He proceeded to read his objection letter from Matt Mire, his neighbor on 2920A June Creek Trail and Vail attorney, who was unable to be present. Mr. Barrie then proceeded to go through the 20 key items as presented and commented with his opposition of each item of this application. He also mentioned that he buys and builds playgrounds and that $35,000 would not provide much of a playground. Guy Erickson, Eaglebend resident, approached the podium and voiced his support of this application as it would benefit Wildridge residents economically if done properly, particularly in these times of economic hardship for the Town. P: \Planning & Zoning Commission \Minutes \2004 \020304.doc Page 4 of 10 Dave Dantas, builder and Wildridge resident, discussed his vacation of two dwelling units. He owns Lot 47, Block 3, on the top of Wildridge by Forest Service access and, if this application were approved then he could do the same on his properties and he wanted this application to be denied. Brent Biggs, Wildridge resident of Lot 19 on June Creek Trail and a civil engineer, presented a site plan for the proposed property. Ruth Borne mentioned that the site plan was included in the Planning and Zoning Commission packets. Mr. Biggs mentioned that cul -de -sacs had maximum distance requirements and this project intended to exceed it. The road's slope would exceed 8% that is greater than the allowable percentage. As well, cul -de- sacs should not be designed with more than twenty dwelling units on them and there are already twenty dwelling units in existence on June Creek Trail. He felt these were key issues in the design that were flawed. Mike Warmenhoven, 2940 June Creek Trail, voiced thanks to the Town of Avon and the Planning and Zoning Commission for the excellent job done in Wildridge to date. He brought to light the increase in traffic for the area and its impact on children in the area by this proposed project. He implored the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny this application. Tripp Plavec, speaking as a member of the public mentioned that increase of residences is acceptable for the area and for the town economically. He commented that the trail was frequently used and that it being paved and having more parking would be desirable. He mentioned that there would be 5.6 million dollars being spent on construction costs and figured that 90% of the labor and 80% of the materials would be coming from Eagle County with 3.7 million dollars being returned to the valley had merit. He felt everybody involved would benefit. Katherine Byers, 2427 Saddleridge Loop, bought a duplex lot and built a single family home. She voiced concern for adequate public services, i.e. water, sewers, police and fire services especially with a higher density. She is not willing for more people to impact the services and is "definitely against this application ". Chris Green, 2909 June Creek Trail, mentioned that neighbors who built single - family homes on their duplex lots did not abandon their additional density rights. These people still hold them. Just because they built a single family home instead of two units, does not mean that someone else has the right to take something that they haven't developed and use it in a development. Approval of this application would give a line of approval for that kind of process. He believes that this would be bad governing and bad precedent. All properties were purchased with the knowledge of their neighbors' use of their lots. He was concerned with the retaining walls that would be required by a 10% driveway and a height of 42 feet above existing grade with the town's limit being 35 feet. He sought denial of this project. P: \Planning & Zoning Commission \Minutes \2004 \020304.doc Page 5 of 10 Tom O'Brien, 2692 Bear Trap, is concerned with the detrimental effect this application would have on his property. He doesn't believe that changing the zoning is good for the community. This is pure and simple an up zoning and it will require a significant change in the building rules. He sees no value to the community in this project, just the people who are doing it will make a pretty penny. Erik Peterson, 3063 Wildridge Road, voiced his support and didn't think that creating acre lots for development is bad, additional park facilities and access to Forest Service land is a positive move to high -end development. Bill Jones, 4400 block of Wildridge Road, voiced opposition. He feels that the people bought duplex lots and should build duplexes. Kim Burns, 2323 Fox Lane, voiced opposition and doesn't think June Creek Trail is dangerous or a hazard. Ron Brethart ( ?) of 2200 Wildridge Road, feels precedence is being set with this application and is opposed. Nigel Dagnall, does not support this application, along with his wife, Victoria. He feels the environment of the Wildridge Subdivision would be adversely effected with the proposed lots and destroys the theme of the area. He is in support of the Staff Report. He stressed that the original zoning must stand. We urge the planners for the Wildridge Subdivision work within the agreed constraints of the original planning and zoning recommendations. Brian Nolan, Longsun Lane resident, said it is sad when developers believe that developing a piece of property and contributing $114,000 to the $30,000,000 budget of this Town is a big deal. The town needs to grow and prosper in positive ways. He was opposed to the project. Jerald Burks, Wildridge resident, admired the presentation by the applicant, feels the western side could be creatively carved out of the property but the main concern is the property owners in the area and their specific feelings on the project. He voiced his opposition to the application. Peter Buckley, Wildridge resident, approached the podium to let the public know that he listened carefully. Public Hearing closed. Chairman Evans wanted to review several issues. There are a lot of times that the Planning and Zoning Commission does make a decision in which that decision, pending an appeal to Town Council, essentially stands, such in the FAPlanning & Zoning Comm ission\M in utes\2004\0203 04.doc Page 6of10 case of Design Review and similar matters. In this particular instance, Town Council will make the final decision regardless of what our decision is tonight. Mr. Bohart responded to the public viewpoint. He began with discussing the up zoning and in view of the property; no one would be impacted by this development. He believes that people are bothered by the premise and not the actuality of the project. He will be approaching Town Council for their decision. He now wishes to amend this application to incorporate the input from this meeting. He stated that his engineers did not have issues creating the driveways for each lot, he struggled with the dwelling units issue having not been accurately understood, the impact of the view corridor to its neighbors doesn't exist and feels the park and cul -de -sac is beneficial to the community. He spoke regarding the petitions that the park, Forest Service access, cul -de -sac, etc., were not understood prior to signing of the petitions. He continued with discussing the impact on people. The adjacent homeowners view corridor is not impacted; it is beneficial from an economic side and would increase their property values. He continued with the value of the park, parking and the Forest Service access. Commissioner Neville referenced the new Comprehensive Plan that is currently in the works and complimented the audience for their civil behavior. He does believe that there are opportunities with developments that are win win situations for the Town and the developer. He did not think this application would set a precedent for Wildridge. However, this application does not conform the Town of Avon's Comprehensive Plan and thus he sought denial. Commissioner Smith thanked the audience for their input and believed the biggest concern was the variance on the setbacks that would have to be created. In a 1991 recommendation from Town Council, a change was made to not up zone. She voiced her opposition to the project. Commissioner Him was concerned regarding the support by our municipal services as stated by Ms. Myer. The lot steepness and adjacent homeowner concerns of changes to these lots not the primary issues. The cul -de -sac upsizing was his main concern and could not approve the application Commissioner Didier complimented Mr. Bohart on his presentation. Commissioner Didier sees a lot of benefits but just doesn't see it working. He liked the road going all the way to the Forest Service, sewers were an issue, felt there was difficulty with the lots as presented, and doesn't work with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Didier could not support the application. Chairman Evans stated the Town Council directive of no up zoning from a 1991 Resolution. The goals which the policies within the Comprehensive Plan are set forth to promote are not supported in this application. Public concern for lower density as demonstrated by the building of single - family homes on lots originally FAPlanning & Zoning Commission \Minutes \2004 \020304.doc Page 7 of 10 zoned duplex. The cul -de -sac being too long and with too many homes on it, is another issue entirely. Although it sounds like a minor technicality, it is a rule and a regulation that we have to abide by. Relocation of the cul -de -sac would be a very significant negative impact on adjacent properties and there is concern about the impact on Town services. These issues do not allow support for the application and its increase in density. Commissioner Him motioned to approve Resolution No. 04 -08, denying PUD Amendment /Sketch Plan Subdivision, Lots 21 &30, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision, 2967 June Creek & 2631 Bear Trap. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. VIII. Variance Applications — PUBLIC HEARING A. Lot 7, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 3038 Wildridge Road Resolution No. 04 -07 Applicants: Snow Now II & Community Development Staff During the design review process for this 3 -plex, there was a discrepancy with the side -yard setbacks between the Town Code and the Wildridge Subdivision Plat. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 17.50.040 (Lot Setback Provisions) of the Town Zoning Code in order to allow the placement of a portion of a newly constructed 3 -plex within the side setback. The Town Zoning Code specifically states in Section 17.50.040 "No building projections shall be permitted into required lot setback areas except, that there shall be no restriction on walks and steps. Setback areas shall be open from the ground upward." Open Public Hearing. Ruth Borne presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Evans asked if this was an honest oversight to the property owner and not an issue of maximizing the lot. Staff made a conscious mistake with this project and this Variance is to correct. Public Hearing closed with no public input or comments. Commissioner Neville motioned to approve Variance Application, Lot 7, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, 3038 Wildridge Road, Resolution No. 04 -07, with Commissioner Didier seconding. All commissioners were in favor. IX. Minor Projects A. Lot 67, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision 0072 Beaver Creek Place City Market Remodel Applicant: Robert Biesk of Mitchell Plus Associates The applicant, Robert Biesk of Mitchell Plus Associates, has submitted a Minor Project application for a complete re- painting of the exterior of City Market, located at 0260 Beaver Creek Place. Also included with this application is a plan to completely remodel the interior of the store that includes the addition of a F: \Planning & Zoning Commission \Minutes \2004 \020304.doc Page 8 of 10 Starbucks Coffee. Staff is recommending approval of these building improvements. B. Lot 11, Block 1, Eaglebend Subdivision - APPROVED 4500 Eaglebend Drive Deletion of half -dome window on southern elevation Applicant/Architect: John M. Perkins Staff approved this Minor Project application for the deletion of the dormer window on the top floor of the eastern unit of this duplex. The project is currently under construction. C. Lot 6, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision - APPROVED 0211 Nottingham Road, Unit F Extend Dormer roof and deck addition Owner /Applicant: Patrick Pinnell This Minor Project application was to extend the shed dormer to turn a vaulted closet space into useable space. Also included in this application was the addition of a deck on the second floor, accessed from the newly created space on the southern elevation of the town home. All owners of the other Balas Town home units approved this design. D. Lot 22, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision - APPROVED 220 Chapel Place Temporary storage and hiring trailer Applicant: W.E. O'Neal Construction Co. Staff approved this application for a temporary hiring trailer and a temporary storage trailer to be placed in the parking lot in front of the new Office Depot location in Chapel Square. Separation of construction and public must be maintained and the trailers must be removed from the site prior to occupancy. XIII. Other Business A. Lot 61 Update B. Comp Plan Update C. Banner regulations for Special Events D. Lighting Ordinance discussion Review Applications X. Adjourn Commissioner Him made the motion to adjourn. Commissioner Smith seconded and the motion was unanimously approved. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, FAPlanning & Zoning Commission \Minutes \2004 \020304.doc Page 9 of 10 Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary /_1 J):10Y LD] Chris Evans Chairman Terry Smith 2W7�1 Secretary , F: \Planning & Zoning Commission \Minutes \2004 \020304.doc Page 10 of 10