Loading...
PZC Minutes 120297Record of Proceedings Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes December 2, 1997 Regular Meeting The Regular Meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Andrew Karow at 6:04 p.m., December 2, 1997, in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, CO 81620. Members Present Mike Dantas Chris Evans Andrew Karow Sue Railton Michael Schneider Beth Stanley Agenda Call to Order Roll Call Commissioner Fehlner was absent. Staff Present Linda Donnellon, Recording Secretary Karen Griffith, Town Planner George Harrison, Planner Steve Hodges, Community Service Officer Mike Matzko, Community Development Director Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Karen requested that Item A of the Public Hearing be deleted from the Agenda. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Schneider declared a Conflict of Interest for Item A of the Final Design Review. Consent Agenda A. Approval of the November 18, 1997 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes B. Lot 26, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision — Roth Duplex -approval of landscape plan and colors/materials Project Type: Residential Duplex Property Owner/ Applicant: Mike Roth Address: 2710 Old Trail Road Project Type: Duplex j Ap&z\minutes\1997\120297. d oc Motion Commissioner Railton moved to move Item B from the Consent Agenda to Final Design as Item A. Commissioner Dantas seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion Commissioner Railton moved to approve Item A of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Dantas seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Final Design Review A. Lot 26, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision — Roth Duplex -approval of landscape plan and colors/materials Project Type: Residential Duplex Property Owner/ Applicant: Mike Roth Address: 2710 Old Trail Road Project Type: Duplex Karen Griffith briefly outlined the staff report. Commissioner Railton was concerned about the amount of sagebrush being used for landscaping by the driveway. She suggested that landscaping be added to the front of the house. Commissioner Evans asked about the existing landscaping. (Tape was inaudible.) Commissioner Dantas stated that you could not see the front of the house or the landscaping from the road. Ms. Griffith suggested that the landscape on the northern side be enhanced to screen the house and the driveway, with additional landscaping for the west side. Chairperson Karow questioned why additional trees would be needed when trees exist in that area. Commissioner Railton said the area was large and that additional trees were needed. Commissioner Stanley made some comments. (Tape was inaudible.) Commissioner Evans said that he agreed with the proposed landscape plan, that the sagebrush would not be noticed from the road. Ms. Griffith said that there were no formal planting requirements at this time. Motion Commissioner Dantas moved to approve the final landscape plan, colors and materials for Lot 26, Block 2, Wildridge Subdivision as submitted. Commissioner Evans seconded the motion. The motion passed with Commissioner Railton opposing. 2 B. Lot 19, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision — Schneider Residence Project Type: Single Family Residence Property Owner: Michael & Glorie Schneider Applicant: Michael Schneider Address: 5566 Coyote Ridge Karen Griffith introduced the project stating that this was a new application for Lot 19, Block 4, Wildridge. The site plan used in the previous application had been modified to raise the foundation wall one foot on the southeast side of the house and one point seven (1.7) feet on the west side. The north side has not been modified. The building's orientation on the lot was basically the same as the previous submittal. Planner Griffith stated that staff had reviewed the revised plans based on the adopted design review criteria and determined that the design did not meet the criteria for two basic reasons: 1. The house is oriented across rather than parallel with the topographic lines. 2. The house does not step with the topography, creating the need for extensive modification, which was cutting of the existing slope. Ms. Griffith used a site plan to describe the existing topography and the proposed modifications to the site. She also presented elevation drawings, which showed the existing grade and the proposed modifications to the site. Ms. Griffith made the following points: a) A 9 -foot cut was shown on the west side of the structure. b) The foundation only stepped four feet where the natural slope changes 12-14 feet. c) The grading plan exceeds the maximum 2:1 slope in two places due to: I. The grading plan was not completed below the driveway, and topographic lines were missing and not connected back to original elevation. II. There was an apparent two -foot drop from the garage floor to the driveway in the first three feet in front of the garage. The revised site plan delivered late that afternoon appeared to correct this problem, but a review needed to be done. Ms. Griffith concluded her presentation stating that staff was recommending denial based on the application not meeting review criteria 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Commissioner Stanley questioned the reference in the report to the letter received by staff regarding the architecture of the structure. Ms. Griffith replied that staff had received a letter submitted at the time of the appeal to town council expressing the opinion that the architecture was not compatible. Since staff did not raise the issue of architectural compatibility in the review of the applications, staff wanted to make the Commission aware there was one neighbor with a difference of opinion on that point. Chairperson Karow asked if the person who wrote this letter had access to the plans. Ms. Griffith indicated she had not spoken directly to the author of the letter but the plans were on file and open to the public and she must have come into the office to look at the plan. Ms. Griffith said she did not receive any comments from the public since the revised application was submitted. Glorie Schneider, applicant and owner, presented two letters dated October 27, 1997 and December 1, 1997 from Design Structures to the Avon Planning and Building Department. Ms. Schneider discussed the following issues: 1. Questions to staff asking why the "positive letters" from the community were not mentioned regarding support and approval of her house. 2. Concerns that the Wildridge area was very inconsistent regarding the Final Design Review process. 3. Concerns that the Town of Avon did not have concrete guidelines addressing Final Design Review Criteria. 4. This application did not go through the Concept Design Review because these plans were delivered in August of 1997 and Final Design Review was scheduled for October 21, 1997. Therefore, this was a two-month period for staff to review this project. 5. Changes were made in compliance with all of staff's recommendations. 6. Starting the process all over again would create a hardship. 7. Regarding the roof overhangs being close to the setbacks: the applicants would be cautious but had the legal right to build within the setback area. Ms. Schneider said there were not a lot of options regarding the placement of the home on the lot. 8. A new revised site plan was submitted to address the grading problems. 9. This site does not fall within the "Steep Slope Guidelines," which were for sites of 20% or more and that all requirements have been met. The applicant's licensed engineer calculated the site at 18%. 10. The Town of Avon did not have engineering guidelines. 11. The foundation of the house was stepped into three different elevations. The foundation steps 5 feet. 12. Grading will occur to the property boundaries but they are fortunate there are no houses on adjacent property boundaries at this time. 13. Having access to views in the Wildridge area is important and the design maximizes those views. 14. Regarding staff's opinion in the massing of the home to the site, Staff was stepping out of their legal boundaries by addressing the size of the house. 15. This lot was zoned for a duplex. Councilmen Reynolds, Jr., at the November 11, 1997, Council Meeting (during the appeal of the P&Z's previous denial of the project) calculated the potential size of a duplex as 9000 square feet that could be placed on this lot. Ms. Schneider asked why was massing becoming an issue for a 4,600 square foot single family residence? Ms. Schneider said a 9000 -square foot duplex would create a larger site disturbance. 16. Other homes in the Wildridge area have nine -foot or greater cuts in the slope. A. Lot 5, Block 4 had a 23.5 foot cut going north to south, straight down the grade without stepping. 4 B. Lot 80, Block 4 has over a 23 foot straight cut. C. The proposed house would only disturb 63% of the lot. D. Lot 77, Block 4 had over 90% site disturbance. 17. The steep slope guidelines were addressed by stepping the foundation of the house. Ms. Schneider reiterated that all of staff's suggestions have been addressed and changed to meet the town's guidelines and criteria. She asked the board to approve her project. Commissioner Dantas commented on stepping the foundation, which did not mean stepping the walls. Chairperson Karow pointed out that the Commission was responsible for the final decision of approval for a Final Design, not staff, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission evaluated the project strictly based on the Design Review Criteria. Commissioner Evans said he was disappointed with the comments made by Ms. Schneider regarding Community Development staff. He said the Community Development Department was hired to do their job. He commented on the applicant's choosing not to present their project at Concept Design Review. Commissioner Evans discussed the difference between a "cut" and "export" in the grade. The issue presented in this project was that the natural terrain would be cut by 9-10 feet and this much material would be removed from the site. Commissioner Evans commented that the site plan the Planning and Zoning Commission had for their review showed a four foot step in building foundation. Ms. Schneider said that she had revised site plans to have a five-foot step in elevation. Commissioner Evans asked staff if the grades were over 20%. Ms. Griffith said she calculated the slope as 24 percent from the northern limits of site disturbance to the southern limits of site disturbance on the west side of the building. She had the site plan with the line indicating where this was measured. Commissioner Evans asked about the letters from the engineer regarding the retaining walls and driveway. He clarified that this project was previously turned downed due to the relationship of the home's design to the site topography. It was not turned down for the building design. Commissioner Evans said he was against this project because the building does not step with the site and he has not seen any changes made to this application. Commissioner Stanley commented she believed it does meet the design review criteria; it is designed to take advantage of the view corridors of the house in respect to the lot. Commissioner Dantas commented on stepping of a foundation, which meant not raising the elevation from the basement floors; it means raising the elevation of the entire floor. Commissioner Railton said she agreed with the comments made by board, that stepping was done at the basement but not the other floor levels. Commissioner Evans reiterated that he was not recommending denial for this project because of the architecture of the home, but because of the relationship of the house to the site topography. Motion Commissioner Evans moved to deny approval of the final design for a single family home on Lot 19, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, as depicted on the application and plan set dated November 18, 1997, based on findings it did not meet design review criteria 1, 3, 4, and 5 with the findings outlined below: Criteria #1. Conformance with the Zoning Code and other applicable regulations of the Town: graded areas exceed the maximum 2:1 slope. The grading plan presented in the Commission's packets depicts inconsistencies that needed to be rectified. Criteria #3. The compatibility of the design to minimize the site impacts to adjacent properties: the amount of grading required based on the siting of the house results in a design not compatible with adjacent properties. Criteria #4. The compatibility of the proposed improvements with site topography: the amount of grading required based on the siting of the house results in a design not compatible with the site topography. Criteria #5. The visual appearance of any proposed improvements as viewed from adjacent and neighboring properties and public ways: This was not an architectural design appearance issue but a problem with the massing of the house in an area that falls under the steep slope guidelines. There is no stepping of the roof plane. Criteria 47. The general conformance of the proposed improvements with the adopted Goals, Policies and Programs for the Town of Avon: The project is not in conformance with the Goals, Policies, and Programs of the Town of Avon because design review criteria #1, #3, #4, and #5 were not met. Commissioner Railton seconded the motion. The motion passed with Commissioner's Stanley and Dantas opposing and Commissioner Schneider abstaining. Public Hearing A. Lot 2, Phase II, Avon Town Square — Special Review Use [No report] Project Type: Four Story Medical Center with two stories of parking Property Owner: A.T.S. Joint Venture Applicant: Al Williams Address: 0030 Benchmark Road Note: applicant requested that this item be withdrawn from the agenda 31 B. Lot 38B, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision — Borg Duplex Project Type: Bed and Breakfast for West Side unit. Property Owner Applicant: Robert Borg Address: 0220-B W. Beaver Creek Blvd. George Harrison briefly outlined the staff report. He said this was a revised application to operate a bed and breakfast in western half of the duplex. The parking issue was the bases for denial of the first application. The applicant has revised his application to have two guestrooms. The facility should provide at least one parking space per guestroom. Mr. Harrison used a site plan to describe the changes made to the parking spaces associated with unit "B". The square footage for the residential unit was less than 2500 square feet, thus requiring only two parking spaces. Commissioner Stanley asked if the bed and breakfast permit could be pulled if traffic problems arose. Mr. Harrison said "no"; those type of problems would have to be taken care of through a different venue. He said Mr. Borg was asking a permanent approval of his application. Commissioner Stanley was concerned about the cars backing out onto Benchmark Road. Mike Matzko asked Chairperson Karow for a time-out so that he could meet briefly with staff. Commissioner Dantas asked staff what would happen if the guest parking lot was full, and would it be a problem with the neighbors if the guests parked there? Mr. Harrison explained the conditions to run a B&B (Bed and Breakfast) as followed: 1. Submittal of a site plan, depicting two parking spaces for a B&B. Commissioner Stanley commented on the number of parking spaces and turn around area in the parking for the cars so that they would not back out into Benchmark Road. Mr. Harrison mentioned that there was a required parking easement on this lot as described in the Partywall Agreement. Mr. Borg, Owner and Applicant, discussed the sensitivity related to the parking issues and cars backing out on Benchmark Road. He said by reducing the guestrooms to two, he has eliminated the need for one parking space. Commissioner Stanley said she was concerned that should the other half of the duplex sell, would the maneuverablity rights be given to the B&B. Mr. Borg said "no". Mr. Harrison read from the Town of Avon Municipal Code book regarding Special Review Use Permits. Commissioner Schneider asked how would the code be enforced. Mr. Harrison said verification by town staff. Commissioner Stanley discussed adding a condition to the motion regarding traffic problem occurring from the B&B. Commissioner Dantas asked what a "conditional review" meant. 7 Chairperson Karow defined "conditional review" as a one-year review process for a permit; that should any conditions not met or complaints filed during that time; the applicant would have to appear before the board. Commissioner Railton asked if a special review use permit could be voided should half of the duplex sell. Mr. Harrison said the only conditions set forth by this application were the area that would be used for the B&B (two guestrooms, the recreation room and two guest -parking spaces). Commissioner Railton asked if the Commission could void this permit if the duplex was sold. Mr. Harrison said a special review use permit was attached to the property as long as the same conditions were met. Mr. Harrison read from the Town of Avon Municipal Code book addressing Commissioner Railton's comments regarding a transfer of a special review use permit. Commissioner Dantas said this application was considered a special case because Mr. Borg owned both side of the duplex. Discussion followed in regards to what will happen to the special review use permit should the whole duplex or half the duplex was sold. Mr. Harrison stated to operate a B&B in the Town of Avon, you would have to reside in the unit in which the B&B was operating. Chairperson Karow said backing into the street was not illegal, and that the Commission did not have the authority to tell anyone that you could not back into the streets. Chairperson Karow asked staff how many parking spaces were required for this application. Mr. Harrison said "four". Commissioner Evans said he understood that it was not illegal to back out of the driveway into a roadway. Commissioner Dantas asked the board why couldn't the homes owners in Wildridge have to have hammerheads and why couldn't they back out on to the streets. Steve Hodges said this was a preventive measure and part of the zoning for the Wildridge area. Commissioner Stanley commented that even though backing out into the streets was not illegal, it was unsafe. Commissioner Evans clarified the parking in front of "A" side and asked about the parking spaces being deeded to "B" side. Mr. Harrison said the whole driveway was accessed for the cars movability. Commissioner Railton asked what would happen to the three parking spaces should side "A" be sold. Chairperson Karow opened the Public Hearing, seeing no one; he closed Public Hearing. Mr. Harrison told the board that he had received a phone call from Kit Williams expressing his support for the B&B. Mr. Borg said he has received phone calls from his neighbors expressing their support for his B&B. He said he has not received any notices of rejection for his proposed business. Discussion followed regarding the duplex being sold, having different owners and having a special review use permit. Commissioner Railton asked about home occupation use and transferring a special review use permit should the property sell. She stated that should the property sell, the new owners should appear before the Commission for approval of a special review use permit. She also stated that a special review use permit should not be transferable. Commissioner Stanley asked who would use the extra parking space should the duplex sell. Commissioner Stanley was making a statement. (Tape was inaudible) Motion Commissioner Stanley moved to approve Resolution # 97-16, granting a Special Review Use Permit for Lot 38B, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, to operate a two guestroom Residential Bed and Breakfast as described in the application dated November 20, 1997, for a permanent duration as specified in Section 17.48.020 of the Town of Avon Municipal Code." with the following condition: 1. A new review shall be done, should severe traffic problems arise from the Bed and Breakfast. Commissioner Schneider seconded the motion. The motion passed with Commissioner Dantas opposing Other Business 1. Mike Matzko updated the Commission regarding Phase Il of the development regulations update. 2. Chairperson Karow announced that the Town Council approved Phase I of the Planning & Zoning Procedures, Rules and Regulations. 3. Commissioner Dantas reminded the board that the bus shelter, located in Wildridge, was not painted. 4. Commissioner Dantas presented photographs depicting Buz Reynolds, Jr.'s dirt deal. ) Legal description was not mentioned). 5. Commissioner Dantas asked about the construction "cavity" on Bear trap Road and stated he was concerned about its size. He asked that the board review this on their next site tour. 9 Adjourn Commissioner Evans made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Schneider seconded the motion and the meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m. r "-11usubmitted, -) ,Vk-kAAJf(xI\,- Linda Donnellon Recording Secretary Mike Dantas Chris Evans Anne Fehlner Andrew Karol Sue Railton Michael Schneider Beth Stanley 10