Loading...
PZC Minutes 020513Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission hAV Meeting Minutes for 0 , Tuesday, February 51h, 2013 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:05pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest. IV. Additions & Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the agenda. V. Minor Design and Development Plan Property Location: Lot 6, Block 1, BMBC Subdivision / 211 Nottingham Road, Unit D Applicant: / Owner. Adrienne Perer Description: A minor design and development application to modify an existing solarium to a stick -built enclosure. Materials and colors will match the existing structure. Work had begun without a permit and the subject application intends to provide design approval from the Town for the pending modifications. Discussion: Jared Barnes, Planner I, highlighted two letters of public input for Item V that were distributed to the Commission, received after the packets were created on Friday, February 1. Jared Barnes presented the history of the project and the timeline of events leading up to submittal of a formal application. There was work completed prior to receiving approval, which lead to a red -tag and stop work order being placed on Unit D. The application was subsequently submitted to staff and is now before the commission. The application includes three (3) parts: 1) solarium enclosed with wood siding, 2) entry door remodel, and 3) front deck extension and fencing. Commissioner Green clarified that there were actually four (4) items under review including the fencing request. Commissioner Struve asked if this contractor has been a problem in the past. Nobody was aware of any previous issues. Commissioner Clancy wanted to know if we would require HOA approval for other types of projects. Jared Barnes responded that the Town Staff has required HOA approval consistently for all types of applications. Commissioner Prince asked when the public comments were submitted. Jared Barnes responded that they were received on Friday and Monday, both after the packets were completed. Commissioner Prince requested that these letters be forwarded to the PZC as soon as possible in the future. Page 1 of 6 In reference to Picture #6 in the packet, Commissioner Prince was trying to understand what exactly the Town and HOA are requesting. He asked how the Town approved the cedar stained pickets on other units in the past. Jared Barnes responded that the Town did indeed approve the pickets on the photographed unit. Commissioner Losa asked what the floor area of the solarium was. Jared Barnes responded that the solarium was the same size and floor area as the proposed enclosed space. Commissioner Green asked if the Town has received any "comprehensive" document that comes from the HOA. Jared Barnes stated that the Town has not received anything representing the entire HOA, but has received individual owner's consent with varying conditions from every owner within the project. Commissioner Anderson asked if all eight (8) owners have provided approval. Jared Barnes stated that all owners have provided some sort of approval, four (4) with varying conditions, and four (4) without any conditions. The applicant's representative distributed the approval letter from Unit G to the PZC for their review since it was not in the meeting packet. Kristen McKnight, representing the applicant, presented to PZC and highlighted the history of the project, since construction in 1981 and ultimately leading up to construction defects. Commissioner Green asked when the work took place on the solarium. Adrienne Perrer, the unit owner, stated that the damage escalated up to August, 2012, until she determined that work must take place as soon as possible. Rhys Olson, designer of the project, explained the condition of the solarium prior to construction and apparent mold issues. The solarium was rotten and the structure supporting the solarium was shifting. Rhys Olson explained to PZC the general construction techniques and timeframe for construction. Commissioner Prince asked if the PZC was responsible for enforcement measures. Jared Barnes responded that the PZC is being asked to provide design rulings on the three (3) changes presented in the Staff Report. He reiterated that the Town would handle any resulting enforcement issues. Rhys Olson stated that Adrienne Perrer was in an emergency situation that required immediate attention. Adrienne Perrer admitted that she did something that should have required prior approval, but learned this after the fact. Kristen McKnight explained the other two (2) design issues. She said that the door was completed five (5) years ago and the Owner received differing information from Town Staff. She requested that this not be made part of this application decision. Kristen McKnight continued to describe -the -other item, an extended -deck -and fence -that -was -installed for the - safety of the owner's children. This work was completed approximately four (4) years ago. The other reason the fence was put up was to keep animals out of the area. Kristen McKnight continued by telling the history of the irrigation for the front area, and that it was shut off to maintain the integrity of the structure due to drainage problems with the foundation. Kristen McKnight asked that the fence and deck not be made part of the PZC decision as it was an HOA issue. The meeting was opened to public comment. Michelle Williams, owner of Unit H, stated that the solarium remodel has been approved to her knowledge. She explained that the HOA had made an approval, and some of the Page 2of6 members of the HOA decided that the fence enclosure should be removed. One of Ms. Williams' conditions was to paint the pickets on the upper deck, and to paint the front door to match the rest of the building. The Chairman closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Commissioner Anderson was in agreement with Staff's determination on the solarium. He did not have an opinion on the fence, but did agree with Staff for the front door. For the extension of the deck, he was unclear about the extension of the deck and felt that the color was generally acceptable. Commissioner Clancy agreed with Commissioner Anderson's comments on the solarium, and fence. He stated the red door should match the other doors, but since the Building Official gave permission he was unclear how to proceed. Commissioner Prince was generally accepting of the solarium remodel with clear HOA approval. He overviewed the issue at hand on whether or not PZC should or should not be involved with the HOA issues. He cited the review criteria in Staffs report, and did not feel that the fence, pickets, and door were not compatible or creating a "unified design". Commissioner Minervini was in agreement with all of Commissioner Prince's comments. Commissioner Struve highlighted the fact that the fence is in the purview of the Town and should be removed. He talked about fences being an active topic in previous years. Commissioner Losa was generally in agreement with other comments. He was in agreement with the solarium but felt that the fascia of the constructed addition should match the depth of other areas of the building. He suggested that Staff research the zoning of the property and the construction of the underlying building. He also recommended that the condominium map should be updated with the County records as things have evolved with construction into common elements. Commissioner Green did not have issues with the solarium, and agreed with Commissioner Losa's comments on the techniques used below the newly framed construction. He did not feel that any approval should be warranted until a clear, bona fide HOA approval is received. Action: Commissioner Prince moved to table the application until a unanimous HOA approval is received. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve, and all Commissioners were in favor of the motion. VI. Minor PUD Amendment, Minor Subdivision, and Variance — PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, WR Subdivision / 5081 & 5091 Wildridge Rd E Applicant: Dominic Mauriello, MPG / Owner. Mountain C.I. Holdings LTD Description: A Minor PUD Amendment, Minor Subdivision, and Variance application have been submitted to take two (2) existing duplex lots and rezone and plat them into three (3) single-family lots. The lots currently contain steep slopes with areas exceeding forty percent (40%) slope. The variance application requests to relieve the new lots from having the meet the steep slope requirements, which prohibit construction in areas exceeding forty percent (40%) slope. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented the applications and overviewed the background of the process and the PUD Amendment process. Jared Barnes explained the intent and purpose of the Wildridge PUD and Subdivision, to provide a diverse housing stock for a diverse Page 3 of 6 population. He highlighted the previous PUD Amendments and the fact that they were all approved with the public benefit criteria and before the development code. Commissioner Anderson asked if the steep slope requirements had a trigger point for how much of a site had to be over 30% slope. Jared Barnes responded that any portion over 30% of the property would initiate these regulations. The Commissioners discussed previous PUD Amendments and the applicability of the Code as it related thereto. They discussed the intent of the Natural Resource Protection section of the Municipal Code and thought that it was directed to other new subdivisions. It was determined that prior to 2010 and the Development Code approval, other amendments were processed with different review criteria and standards. Jared Barnes completed his presentation and reiterated his recommendations as they related to the mandatory review criteria. He explained the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Needs Assessment recommendations. Jared Barnes also emphasized the required findings for PZC to approve the Variance application specifically. Commissioner Minervini wanted to know what the SFE numbers were based on, and what would happen under current zoning if they developed over 3,000 sq. ft. Jared Barnes responded that the owner could build over 3,000 sq. ft. units, but would pay a surcharge to the water district based on the pro -rated size of the home(s). Jared Barnes made the Commission aware of the public comment that was received from the Colorado Geological Society of February 5, 2013. Commissioner Losa questioned the re -grading work at the top of the site, and the trail that showed up on the topographical work. Jared Barnes mentioned that the area near the road was minimally graded for a staging area related to the neighboring home construction a couple years ago. It was explained that the trail did not have an easement, and was extremely steep. Dominic Mauriello, representing the owner, presented the application to the Commission. He did not agree that the Variance application was required, and it was not a "PUD within a PUD." Dominic Mauriello went through the history of previous PUD Amendment approvals, and how the proposal meets the review criteria in his opinion. The applicant presented a recommended variance motion and PUD Amendment motion with a condition that the vehicles leaving the properties not be required to back into the street. Dominic Mauriello responded to the public referral comment from the Colorado Geologic Society and felt that there were several inaccuracies. Commissioner Struve asked if the applicant had explored footprint restrictions for the newly proposed properties. Dominic Mauriello responded that the owner has not entertained this type of restriction. Chairman Green opened and closed the public hearing without any comments received. Commissioner Losa agreed with Staff and the direction to limit development over 40% slope. He did not agree that the application met the required findings for Variance and thought it would result in a special privilege to the owner if three single-family homes were constructed. Page 4 of 6 Commissioner Struve's recollection was that this was a re -subdivision and not a new subdivision. He did not feel that market forces supported duplex structures. Commissioner Struve likes the duplex model but it does not meet market conditions anymore. Commissioner Minervini reiterated the "common sense" approach, and he believes that free market should dictate what is built in this area of the PUD — especially given the high recent sales prices of the properties. Commissioner Prince felt that this should be referred to as a resubdivision and not a new subdivision. He expressed his general support for applications. He did not think it was a grant of special privilege and there is merit in three single-family residences. Commissioner Prince did think that market forces are controlling what is built and this does not affect "local's" housing in any way. Concerning precedent, he did not see why it would not be approvable as submitted. Commissioner Prince thought that some sort of footprint limitation should be explored by the applicant, since the concept for breaking away from duplex should be maintained with open space. Commissioner Clancy explained that his initial response was positive and it seemed like a logical application. He was still unclear with exactly how he stands on the technicalities involved with the application. Commissioner Clancy agreed with other Commissioner's comments and did indeed mention that this was a resubdivision and not a new subdivision. Commissioner Anderson agreed with other Commissioners that this is a resubdivison and not a new subdivision. He said that single-family homes create more open space as a public benefit. He recommended that on Lot 1 there should not be a limit on square footage given the value of the property, and that on Lot 2 and Lot 3 the footprint should be limited to 2,500 sq. ft. or some other reasonable number agreeable to the Town and the Applicant. Commissioner Green went through the various development scenarios of the current zoning. He agreed with the direction Commissioner Anderson was headed with building footprint limitations but was not convinced that 2,500 sq. ft. was the correct number. Commissioner Green was in favor of tabling the request to better understand the intent of the new code. Action: Commissioner Minervini motioned to continue until March 5, 2013 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. Virginia Egger, Town Manager, suggested direction to staff for additional documentation the PZC would want for review to help the applicant move forward. Commissioner Green mentioned street views, and building footprints, and researching the intent of the regulations. Commissioner Losa recommended building footprints and not size restrictions. Commissioner Losa commented that the driveways will ultimately be the driving factor with design and resulting impacts. The motion to table passed with a 6-1 vote. VII. Approval of Meeting Minutes • January 15, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes VIII. Other Business • Signs at Beaver Liquors • Winter lighting • Special Meeting on February 26 with Town Council. Page 5of6 IX. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:15pm. APPROVED on this 19th Day of February, 2013 SIGNED: �f P��A- Chris Green, Chair ATTEST: Phil trove, Vice Chairman Page 6 of 6