PZC Minutes 110309Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission
—} Meeting Minutes for November 3, 2009
Avon Town Council Chambers
Meetings are open to the public
V 0- N Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street
REGULAR WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm)
Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public
REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm)
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:35 pm.
Roll Call
All Commissioners were present, with the exception of Commissioners Lane and Green.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
There were no additions or amendments to the agenda.
IV. Conflicts of Interest
There were no conflicts of interest to disclose.
V. Consent Agenda
• Approval of the October 20, 2009 Meeting Minutes
Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the consent agenda as amended.
Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and it passed 5-0.
ZONING
VI. Court at Stonebridge PUD Amendment
Property Location: Piling 3, Eaglebend Subdivision 13000 Eaglebend Drive.
Applicant: Michelle Rampelt, representing the Stonebridge Cluster HOA
Description: The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment is to allow short
term rentals in addition to the currently allowed uses for the Court at Stonebridge PUD. The
current uses by right and accessory uses include: single family houses, townhomes, and
existing detached garage buildings."
Discussion: Matt Pielsticker briefly described the proposed PUD amendment and the process
that has taken place thus far.
Commissioner Prince questioned why Criteria #7 and #10 were deemed not applicable. Matt
Gennett answered that the criteria was intended to question internal circulation. He asked that
Staff leave the Criteria broad to include various forms of traffic that are inherent to Short Term
Rentals.
Commissioner Goulding asked about the process and how that has been determined. Matt
Gennett outlined the Municipal Code and schedule for PUD amendments of this type.
Commissioner Struve asked how we know if each owner was notified. Matt Pielsticker stated
that the applicant has provided a list of all property owners to all PUD homeowners as well as
homeowners within 300 feet.
Commissioner Goulding commented on the Overlay Zone District that was approved by the
Town Council.
Michelle Rampelt, Bold Real Estate and property manager for Stonebridge PUD, briefly
highlighted why the PUD Amendment is being asked for.
Commissioner Prince questioned if there were any complaints from Short Term Rentals.
Michelle Rampelt answered negatively.
The public hearing was opened and closed due to a lack of comments.
Commissioner Struve wants the HOAs to understand the legal responsibility they are taking
on. Matt Gennett read into the record the Acknowledgement Statements that is above the
signatures on the PUD application.
Commissioner Prince had no comments.
Commissioner Anderson was in favor of the proposed PUD and felt that it was supported by
the Comprehensive Plan, and is located in a good part of Town for the proposed use.
Commissioner Goulding discussed the procedure that PUD amendments go through. He
questioned if Criteria #10 comment could be modified to state that there is an existing bus
route that this property is located along. He also commented on Criteria #12 by stating that no
one knows how this use, on this scale, will affect the Town.
Action: Commissioner Prince moved to approve the PUD amendment with the conditions and
findings listed in Staff Report and with the modification of Finding 3 to move review criteria #7
and #10 to Finding 1 (thereby acknowledging their applicability); change paragraph two of
Staff's response to the Public Benefit criteria to state that "the adverse impacts are unknown
with this change in zoning rights; add the finding of fact that makes specific reference to the
proximity of the property to the bus routes; add the finding that shows almost unanimous
support from the HOA (18 of 19 contacted), noted that the final property owner lives out of the
country.
Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and it passed with a 5-0.
DESIGN REVIEW
VII. Courtyard Villas
Property Location: Lot 12 & 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision I Buck Creek Road
Applicant: Michael Hazard, Morter Architects / Owner Advanced Home Technologies
Description: Minor Project review to remove the approved louvers for the existing design
approval for both duplexes.
Discussion: Jared Barnes briefly described the proposed modifications. He clarified that the
proposed modifications would only affect Residences C & D on Lot 13, Block 3, WR. Ignacio
de Iriola commented that the application originally contemplated all units on Lots 12 & 13
remove the louvers, but now only units C and D will be modified. He further stated the louvers
on units A and B would not restrict the views given the elevations in the units. He stated after
an interior designer recommended removing the louvers, and given the current economic
climate, the owners chose to remove the louvers to help the marketability of the units.
Commissioner Struve questioned why the owner did not propose this change for Buildings A
and B. He further commented that there are not two stories in the buildings A and B and
therefore they felt that it was appropriate and it could also help further differentiate the two
neighboring structures.
Commissioner Goulding requested clarification as to which lot contained which units. He felt
that the louvers provide a shadow line that would not otherwise be experienced. He stated
another benefit to the louvers would be that they would reduce the glare.
Commissioner Prince asked what would prohibit any other owner from coming in and adding
louvers after the fact. Jared Barnes responded that the Town Guidelines prohibit any exterior
modifications without first gaining approval. A discussion ensued among the Commissioners
about different exteriors on two halves of a duplex structure.
Commissioner Goulding expanded on his thoughts regarding the need for some type of trellis
or shading structure to provide shading for lower levels. He stated it could be done without
restricting the views.
Action: Struve move to approve the proposed modifications for Lot 13, Buildings C and D, with
the condition that trellis design that will not block the view, but will provide shade to lower floor
and can be approved by staff.
Commissioner Roubos 2nd the motion.
Commissioner Goulding suggested adding findings since this approval contradicted Staff's
recommendation.
Commissioner Struve added the following findings:
1. The proposed modifications further define two separate duplexes;
2. The applicant has provided mechanisms to provide shading inside the
structure;
3. The buildings are more attractive, acceptable, and protect views.
Commissioner Goulding suggests adding a fourth: the approval still provides sun shading
mechanisms.
Commissioners Struve and Roubos accept the modifications to the motion and it passes 4-0-1
with Commissioner Prince abstaining.
VIII. Other Business
• Zoning Interpretation — Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision
Discussion: Matt Gennett briefly described the request for an interpretation.
Commissioner Goulding questioned the other 8 -unit lot within Wildridge.
Commissioner Prince questioned if there was anything additional needed to refute Eric
Heidemann's letter attached to the staff memo.
Commissioner Prince also asked if there were other instances where the Wildridge
PUD has left zoning rights to interpretation. Matt Gennett responded affirmatively.
Commissioner Anderson asked if there were any single family or duplex structures on
other lots that have a zoning designation or 8, 9, or 10 units. Matt Gennett responded
negatively.
Mike Dantas discussed his request for a zoning interpretation and a formal motion that
captures the Planning and Zoning Commissions decision. He stated that they would
like to limit the sizes of the SF homes to approximately 2,200 sq. ft.
Commissioner Goulding clarified the request by stating that the applicant wants a
clarification on the type of structures that would be considered for Design Review. He
commented that this interpretation should be addressed on its own merits instead of
comparing it to other examples of cluster development within the Town of Avon.
Dominic Maueriello clarified that there wasn't a PUD amendment.
Commissioner Anderson stated the type of dwelling was left open and therefore he
thinks there is nothing that says they can't do it.
Commissioner Prince stated that given the background of this zoning interpretation,
and the possible implications, Mr. Gennett expressed the desire to have this
interpretation made by the Commission — as prescribed by the Town Code. He stated
the Plat was silent. He also stated the past history wasn't the indicator about what
should be built.
Commissioner Struve asked if there was any impact on water rights. Mike Dantas
clarified that the SFE maximum size was 3,000 square feet and they will be under that.
He stated that the current conditions should be considered and that single families
could work on the site.
Commissioner Roubos concurred with the decisions made by her fellow.
Commissioners. She stated that the owner should prove that it works.
Commissioner Goulding stated that this lot should be allowed to develop anything from
8 separate units to a single 8-plex.
Action: Commissioner Roubos moved to state the plat clarifies density only and not
dwelling unit type. Furthermore, it was the applicants responsibility
Commissioner Struve 2nd the motion and it passed 5-0.
• New Assistant Town Manager/Community Development Director
• CIP plan for 2010 and P&Z approval
• Commissioner Support of BC parking lots into Town and bridges over the river
IX. Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45
Approved +
W. Todd Gc
Chairpersoi
Phil Struve
Secretary