MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES

Transcription

1 MESA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 10, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES Chairman Justman called to order a scheduled hearing of the Mesa County Planning Commission at 6:03p.m. Secretary Flynn led the Pledge of Allegiance. The hearing was held in the Public Hearing Room, Mesa County Administration Building at 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, Colorado. In attendance representing the, were: John Justman, Christi Flynn, Phillip Jones, Sam Susuras, Pat Bittle, and Woody Walcher. In attendance, representing the Mesa County Department of Planning and Economic Development, were: Kurt Larsen, Linda Dannenberger, Keith Fife, JoCarole Haxel, Ron Quarles, and Paul Sizemore. Chy Arnett was present to record the minutes. There were nine (9) citizens present throughout the hearing. ANNOUNCEMENTS Kurt Larsen announced that items one (1) and two (2) are Master Plan amendments and because of the Bylaws only regular members of the Planning Commission may vote on these two items. Because of this Commissioner Walcher will not be voting on those two items. He also stated that the Agenda s in the Planning Commission binders is not accurate and he would like an official motion to move item four (4) CP1 Wildewood Condos PUD Concept Plan Amendment to be moved to the Hearing Agenda. Motion: Commissioner Bittle moved that item CP1 Wildewood Condos PUD Concept Plan Amendment be moved from the Consent Agenda to the Hearing Agenda. Second: Commissioner Susuras Motion Approved: 6-0 CONSENT ITEMS MP1 ABOLISHING TWENTY OBSOLETE ELEMENTS FROM THE MESA COUNTY MASTER PLAN Representative(s): Mesa County Planning and Economic Development Department Request: Keith Fife, , keith.fife@mesacounty.us Approving a resolution to update the Mesa County Master Plan by abolishing twenty (20) old, obsolete, and/or redundant policies in the current Master Plan as follows: Land Use Development Policy # s 2 17, 19, 22, 23, adopted in 1982 and Policy #34 - Road Needs Study adopted in The policies proposed for abolishment are available for review at on the Mesa County website at: Staff Recommendation: Approval Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: N/A

2 Motion: Commissioner Susuras moved the Planning Commission to approve item MP1 Abolishing Twenty Obsolete Elements from The Mesa County Master Plan. Second: Commissioner Bittle Motion Approved 5-0 (Woody Walcher abstained because he is an alternate) APPROVING THE RESOLUTION FOR MP1 ABOLISHING TWENTY OBSOLETE ELEMENTS FROM THE MESA COUNTY MASTER PLAN Motion: Commissioner Bittle moved that the Planning Commission approve the signing of the resolution for MP1 Abolishing Twenty Obsolete Elements from the Mesa County Master Plan. Second: Commissioner Jones Motion Approved 5-0 (Woody Walcher abstained because he is an alternate) CP1 LUCKY SUBDIVISION CONCEPT PLAN Property Owner(s): Charles and Janell Lovett Representative(s): Ed Rozman Location: 3010 C Road, Grand Junction (30 & C Rds) Zoning: RSF-R Ron Quarles, , Ron.Quarles@mesacounty.us Request: To subdivide a 10-acre parcel into 2 parcels of 5 acres each. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: Motion: Commissioner Jones moved that item CP1 Lucky Subdivision Concept Plan be passed on to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to staff s recommendations and comments. Second: Commissioner Bittle CP1 GLEN HAVEN ESTATES (EATON) CONCEPT PLAN Property Owner(s): Eaton Family Trust Representative(s): Tom Logue Location: 2245 K Rd, Grand Junction (K & 22 Rds.) Parcel #: Zoning: AFT Request: Jo Carole Haxel, , jocarole.haxel@mesacounty.us To subdivide a acre parcel into 5 single-family residential lots. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: Motion: Commissioner Bittle moved that item CP1 Glen Haven Estates (Eton) Concept Plan be passed on to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Second: Commissioner Jones 2

3 HEARING ITEMS CP1 WILDEWOOD CONDOS PUD CONCEPT PLAN AMENDMENT Property Owner(s): Wildewood Condos LLC Representative: R. Bryan Sims, Design Specialists, P.C. Location: 423 & 425 Wildewood Dr, Mesa (Wildewood Dr & Powder Ridge Cr) Zoning: PUD Paul Sizemore, , Request: A request to amend the Development Standards for Lots 47 and 48 of the Powder Basin Planned Unit Development, Powder Basin Filing 4, Wildewood Subdivision specifically related to changes in setbacks, building height, removing the center lot line, and adjusting the language regarding the maximum of 4 units per lot, to allow up to a total of 8 units on the original Lots 47 & 48. Staff Recommendation: Approval with Conditions Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date: Staff Presentation Paul Sizemore, Senior Planner, for the Mesa County Planning and Economic Development Department entered into record the project name Wildwood Condos PUD Concept Plan PUD Amendment, the project file CP1 Wildwood Condos PUD Concept Plan Amendment, the project review dated November 25, 2009, the Mesa County Land Development Code and the Mesa County Land Use Plan and a PowerPoint presentation labeled Exhibit A. Mr. Sizemore presented Exhibit A to the Planning Commission and Public stating that the Powder Basin PUD was approved in 1988 which included an official development plan for the entire area. The forth filing of the Powder Basin PUD was called the Wildwood Subdivision that was approved in The original Wildwood Subdivision had 48 lots with 46 of them for single-family homes and the remaining two were approved for multi-family units. He stated that in 2008 they revised the original plan to replace 7 of the units on the multi-family lots. He explained the reasons behind the revisions were due to topography problems. In order to accommodate the new plan the two lots would have to become one. Mr. Sizemore continued to explain the other issues surrounding the revisions stating it was discovered they would not meet the setbacks with the revised plans. He demonstrated to the Planning Commission how the revised project would not be able to meet the setbacks. Mr. Sizemore continued stating that in order for the applicant to accomplish their desired plan a couple things would need to happen. In order to make the duplex conforming and be able to build the rest of the lots the PUD development standards would have to be amended and the two multifamily lots would have to be consolidated to eliminate the center lot line. He made it clear that this PUD amendment would only affect the PUD development standards and lot lines for just the two lots and all the rest of the standards for the remaining lots would stay the same. He went through the changes being asked for and compared them with the current standards. 3

4 Mr. Sizemore stated the main issue encountered while reviewing this application was with two of the Review Agencies, the Mesa Area Planning Association and the Powderhorn Recreation and Development Company objected to the changes proposed either in all or in part and he took note of their concerns however they were not directly related to the approval criteria in the Land Development Code that is reviewed by Mesa County Staff and it is important to note that the Review Agencies had some design issues which may still have a venue to be addressed, however it would be reviewed by the Homeowners Association and the Architectural Review Board based on the Powder Basin Design guidelines which were adopted by the Architectural Review Board that oversees the entire Powder Basin PUD area. He continued by going over the criteria to which the application was reviewed and a recommendation by. Mr. Sizemore stated that the recommendation by staff is for approval with conditions on the basis that the application complies or can comply with the approval criteria Section H and Section of the Mesa County Land Development Code (2000 as amended). Questions/Discussion Commissioner Susuras asked for clarification of the amount of lots stating his understanding is that at this time they have been approved for two (2) of the lots to have eight (8) units. Mr. Sizemore confirmed that was correct the proposal would eliminate the two lots to consolidate them into one large lot to eliminate the lots line but still be able to have the 8 units on one lot. He made it clear that there would not be an increase in the amount of units however it would increase the number of allowed units per lot because it would be one (1) lot not two (2). Chairman Justman asked if the Planning Commission recommend approval and it is approved by the Board of County Commissioners then it would still have to go before the Architectural Review Board to approve any design standards. Mr. Sizemore stated that was correct because this would be considered a re-plat of these two (2) lots however they are still subject to review by the Powder Basin Architectural Review Board. Commissioner Walcher stated that the project review has only seven (7) units proposed not eight (8). Mr. Sizemore stated that is the number of units being proposed for their Major Site Plan Application which is not a part of the application being looked at. The application being looked at would allow up to eight (8) units Applicants Representative Darren Keri, 2571 I ½ road stated that he had no real comment but was here to answer any questions that may come up. Chairman Justman wanted to know if seven (7) units or eight (8) units were proposed at the neighborhood meeting. He stated that only seven (7) were proposed at the meeting. Public Comments Mike and Dorothy Crow, 4872 Deer path, stated they were the first home owner s to build in the Wildewood Subdivision. Mrs. Crow stated that she was confused because if there is already two (2) lots and one of the lots already has a duplex and the applicants want to build another duplex and a triplex on what is left. She can t see how that would 4

5 all fit mentioning the wetlands area below the lot and open land behind the lot, maybe to divert some water, but she can t see how it will all fit on the remaining lot. Mr. Crow stated that when they built they had to go by the standards that were set within the PUD. He pointed out that his lot was set next to wetlands and they had to follow the setbacks. He can understand the topography issues but at the time of purchase they should have known the topography issues ahead of time like he and his wife did. He talked about the proposed height of the new buildings. Mr. Crow stated that his overall position is that he and his wife don t want any changes made to the standards. Commissioner Walcher pointed out that the proposed setback change on the wetlands is from fifteen (15) foot to twelve (12) foot and he wanted to know if that would really cause them concern. Mrs. Crow stated that her understanding is that the wetlands need to be protected and the more you encroach on them the more the runoff is affected as well as the growth of the area. Mr. Crow again stated that when they purchased in the Subdivision they had to go by the standards outlined and he feels that everyone should have to follow those guidelines that were set at the time of purchase and they don t appreciate the fact they had to follow those guidelines and they would have liked to made changes themselves but they followed what was laid out and they feel that everyone else should as well. Applicants Representative Darren Keri, 2571 I ½ road, stated that he wanted to point out that they are reducing the density from what has already been approved because they did not want to change the overall look and feel of the current community out there at great expense to themselves to keep the same feel. Commissioner Jones wanted to know if they would have a problem if they recommend limiting the units to seven (7). Mr. Keri stated that their building style and design is such an expense that they would not want to change again, and because of that he would say he is not opposed, however as the senior planner mentioned they want from a builders stand point, to have the freedom. Closed to Public Questions/Discussion Secretary Flynn wanted to know if the density requirements have changed since the Crow s built their home. Mr. Sizemore stated that he does not know for sure when the Crow s home was built but that if it was built following the platting of the subdivision in 1996 then that is what is still in effect. Chairman Justman wanted to know if the lots are lower than the rest of the subdivision. Mr. Sizemore showed photos of the subdivision stating that there may be some other lots that are lower but generally when you head into the subdivision it is heading up. Secretary Flynn wanted to know if the two (2) lots are larger than most other lots in the subdivision. Mr. Sizemore stated that it is not a huge size difference but they are larger and were designated for the multi-family units. Commissioner Bittle wanted to know what the height of the existing structure is. Mr. 5

6 Sizemore stated if you apply the measurement method that the applicant is proposing in the PUD standards is just under thirty-five (35) feet on the existing duplex. Commissioner Bittle wanted to know if on the proposed multi-family buildings would be thirty-five (35) foot tall as well. Mr. Sizemore stated the applicants have applied for that height limit because their site plan would comply with that. Motion: Secretary Flynn moved that project CP1 Wildewood Condos PUD Concept Plan Amendment be passed on to the County Commissioners with staff recommendations of approval with conditions. Second: Commissioner Susuras Motion: Commissioner Walcher moved that the meeting be adjourned. Second: Commissioner Susuras Hearing adjourned at 6:50 PM Respectfully Submitted, Christi Flynn, Secretary 6