Loading...
PZC Minutes 030513I. Call to Order Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes March 5t', 2013 Meeting Avon Town Council Chambers Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street 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 No Additions or Amendments were made. V. Minor PUD Amendment, Minor Subdivision, Variance — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 33 & 34, Block 4, WR Subdivision Property Address: 5081 & 5091 Wildridge Rd East 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: Matt Pielsticker, Planner, introduced the application and explained the new materials in the packet which included building footprint examples, massing studies, and a letter responding to the Colorado Geologic Survey. Commissioner Minervini requested confirmation of the benefits that were attributed to the Western Sage PUD as discussed at the previous meeting. The benefits included reduced site coverage, square footage caps, increased light and air, and shared access. Dominic Mauriello, applicant, presented the revised application materials to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC). He discussed the arrival at a 3,000 sq. ft. building footprint cap on Lot 2, and 2,500 sq. ft. cap on Lot 3, with no restriction on Lot 1. Commissioner Struve asked if the massing studies showed a 35' structure for Lot 3. Dominic Mauriello stated that all of the homes were modeled at 35' building height. Commissioner Green wanted to know if the building footprints on the submitted materials included the garage square footage. It was confirmed by the applicant that they did include the gross square footage. Page I 1 The public hearing was opened and closed with no public comments received. Commissioner Losa was in agreement with Staff that the Development Code does not differentiate between resubdivision and subdivision, and that the slope criteria should apply; he did not think the variance was warranted in this case and it would be a grant of special privilege because nobody else has received the same exemption since the Development Code was put in place. Commissioner Struve did not have any comments. Commissioner Minervini did not believe this would be a grant of special privilege. He found value with an improved view from the street and footprint limitations. Commissioner Minervini remained in support of the application. Commissioner Prince acknowledged that there needs to be code cleanup work, and that this particular steep slope section was ready for re -review. He did not feel that there has been a precedent set, and that three single-family structures instead of two coast-to-coast duplexes was a benefit in and of itself. Commissioner Prince was supportive of the proposed building footprint restrictions as drafted in the approval. Commissioner Clancy felt that it was a better overall development, and there was a clear reduction in impacts to steep slopes as proposed. Commissioner Anderson citied a discussion with Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer, that took place in 2010 during code rewrite when he asked Justin Hildreth if the Steep Slope section would apply to Wildridge. He explained that the section was not intended to apply to existing (i.e. Wildridge) subdivisions. At that time, Commissioner Anderson recommended that there should be a minimum area or percentage of a lot that exceeds 30% slope for the section to kick in, so as to not require steep slope mitigation when only a very small area such as a ditch exceeded 30% slope. Commissioner Anderson did not feel that this application was a zoning amendment and only a PUD Amendment, with no variance required. Commissioner Green also remembered the discussion on steep slopes, and did not agree with its implementation in this case. He was in support of the application and recommended adding three additional findings. Dominic Mauriello responded to some of the Commissioner comments and explained that he did not originally submit a Variance application, and only did so after Staff's initial review took place. He reiterated that this is not a new subdivision; rather a re -subdivision. Also, this was not a zoning amendment when reviewing the code literally. Action: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the Minor PUD amendment with the findings and conditions listed in the Staff provided Exhibit E, with the following modifications: • Adding finding #5 from the Staff provided Resolution approving the Variance, with additional language that a Variance from §7.28.100, Steep Slopes, AMC, is not required due to fact that the Wildridge Point subdivision is a "re -subdivision" and not a new subdivision; and • Adding finding #4 from the Staff provided Resolution approving the Variance, with explanation that the 2010 Development Code was not intended to apply to the Wildridge Subdivision; and • Adding finding #6 from the Staff provided Resolution approving the Variance, as drafted; and Page 12 • Adding finding #7 from the Staff provided Resolution approving the Variance, as drafted; and • Adding a finding that gross square footage includes the garage for the building footprint limitations on Lot 2 and Lot 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. Commissioner Green opened a discussion of the motion. He suggested adding the three findings from his review, including: • The use -by -right for the Property would allow significant possible development on the entire site; and • Approval of Minor PUD would reduce building massing; and • Building impact on-site is reduced by adding building footprint restrictions The motioner, Commissioner Anderson, and the second, Commissioner Struve, both accepted the revised motion. A discussion continued with the revised motion and conditions. Commissioner Anderson suggested that before finding #4, another finding be added that states that PZC does not consider this a zoning change, as the zone district classification is not changing with the request. Commissioner Struve agreed with the added finding. A condition was added to direct Staff to prepare the revised Findings of Fact and Record of Decision, and give the Chairman of PZC the approval authority. The motion, conditions, and findings were approved unanimously VI. Special Review Use, Minor Development Plan, AEC — PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Property Address: 0111 & 0121 Nottingham Road Applicant. Dominic Mauriello, MPG Owner. G.P.I. LLC & G.P.I. Partners - Jim Pavelich Description: The request is for a surface parking lot and landscaping on Lot 2, immediately west of the Shell Gas Station. A crosswalk across Nottingham Road is also being proposed to access the North side Coffee and Kitchen building. The applicant has requested this public hearing be continued to the March 19, 2013 regular PZC meeting. Discussion: No discussion took place. The public hearing was opened and closed with no public comments. Action: Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the continuance to the March 19, 2013 meeting. Commissioner Losa seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. VII. Review of Revised 2013/2014 PZC Work Plan Schedule Description: Following the adoption of the Town of Avon 2013-14 Strategic Plan & 2013 Work Plan by the Town Council on February 26, 2013, and the Joint Work Session between PZC and Council on the same date, Staff has prepared a revised Work Plan for PZC review, comment, and approval Discussion: PZC discussed the draft Work Plan. The general consensus was that the Work Plan was ambitious, and that code re -writing and a Comprehensive Plan could not be Page 13 completed in the timeframes proposed. Virginia Egger, Town Manager, reiterated that the Plan was based on the Council Work Plan and that it was o.k. if everything was not completed on the list in the timeframes, but that it needed to be outlined otherwise the work would not be completed. Action: PZC directed Staff to start by coming back at the next meeting with the master list of code amendments in list of priority. Vlll. Approval of Meeting Minutes • February 5, 2013 Draft Meeting Minutes Commissioner Struve made a motion to approve the February 5, 2013 minutes with the discussed modifications. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed 5-0, with 2 abstentions. IX. Other Business • PZC requested an explanation of the Village PUD DRB call-up process. • Celebration for Paul after the next meeting was requested. X. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:35pm. APPROVED on this 19th Day of March, 2013 SIG ED- U a:�4 Phil Struve, Vice Chairman Page 14 ATTEST: C Scott Prince, Secretary