PZC Minutes 120500 (2)Minutes of Planning & Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
December 5, 2000
Council Chambers
Town of Avon Municipal Building
400 Benchmark Road
I. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. Roll Call
All Commissioners were in attendance with the exception of Commissioner Klein.
III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda
None
IV. Conflicts of Interest
Commissioner Macik had a conflict with Concept Review, Item A, Lot 2, Block 4,
Wildridge, dual driveways. Commissioner Fehlner stated she had a financial tie
to a lease obligation with the Work Session, Item A, Lots 2&3, Avon Town
Square. Chairman Evans said he did not see a conflict for Commissioner
Fehlner.
V. Consent Agenda
A. Approval of the October 17, 2000 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Fehlner moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner
Sipes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
VI. Condition of Final Design Approval
A. Lot C, Avon at Beaver Creek Subdivision
Sheraton's Mountain Vista
Mock-up of Colors and Materials
Ruth Borne, Assistant Director Community Development, stated Staff had no
comments.
Chairman Evans opened discussion to Commission review.
Commissioner Sipes said he would like to see a set of elevations labeled for all
buildings, plans, including employee housing and all towers correlating the colors and
materials with the mock-up. We also need an accurate depiction of the mock-up. There
were new colors introduced that were not on the color renderings and do not reflect the
colors in our guidelines. White windows are not in our guidelines. Commissioners
Head, Karow, Fehlner and Macik agreed.
Commissioner Fehlner further stated the range of colors presented on the mock-up
were too disjointed and incompatible with each other.
Commissioner Karow commented that a vinyl -clad window would be more acceptable.
He said there was a corrugated metal siding at the original design review; however,
what is on the mock-up is a painted material that would weather. The stone base
should have more color and relief, which would anchor the building. The glue lam and
columns should look similar in texture.
Chairman Evans said we are not trying to design by committee but just giving input to
guide the applicant. We would like to see a warmer mix of colors. The steel galvalume
previously submitted had a low reflectivity. We are very concerned with reflectivity.
There is an overall sense of a swapping of materials and colors from those originally
proposed. Chairman Evans said he was not objecting to the vinyl window material but
they should not be white. White windows will not be approved. The mock-up needs to
be revised to indicate what is actually being proposed.
Alexander Sheykhet, representing Oz Architects, said the railing would be painted. They
will paint the pickets, make the stone base darker, more dimensional and unify the glue
lam and rough -sawn timber. They will work with the color scheme and bring them
closer to earth tones staying generally with gray and rose. Oz will delete the white
windows to something less stark in color. They will work with detailing corner transitions
in corrugated metal and shingles. He said they would get an exact sample of the
corrugated metal to be installed and get numbers on reflectivity.
Commissioner Sipes moved to table the application. Commissioner Karow seconded
the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
VII. Concept Review
A. Lot 2, Block 4, Wildridge
Project Type: Duplex - Separate Driveways
Applicant: Tab Associates
Address: 5792 Wildridge Road East
Commissioner Macik stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Minutes of P&Z Meeting
December 5, 2000
Page 2
Planner, Tambi Katieb, gave the Staff presentation. There are five points listed as Staff
concerns in the Concept Review. Staff recommends the applicants resubmit a design
for this project which uses only a single access point.
Applicant,Tab Bonidy of Tab Associates and his wife Debbi and half owner of the duplex
and Cindy Rito, owner of the other half duplex were present. Tab is trying to prove to
the Planning and Zoning Commission that the dual access is a better solution.
Tab said the dual driveway will not cause an increase in site disturbance. Two
driveways create less site disturbance. They will make the area look less like a parking
lot when all the cars are parked in front of the garage. There are a lot of advantages to
the dual driveway design. There would not be a traffic problem at this location. We are
not exceeding the 24 -foot width limit with the proposed driveway.
Ms. Borne commented Engineering is concerned with the impact on the drainage
easement created by the hammerhead. Tab said he understands about the
hammerhead being in the 10 -foot snow storage area and will remedy that.
Commissioner Karow said the guidelines are clear-cut stating that residential projects
with six or fewer units shall be restricted to a single point of vehicle access from a public
right of way.
Commissioner Sipes said he did not see a hardship which warrants an exception to the
guidelines. The proper procedure is for Tab to show a hardship.
Chairman Evans commented he believed scheme A is better than scheme B. He
disagreed to some extent on the comments from Engineering. He did not see a site
issue on this inside curve which is on a flat road. The increased traffic impact does not
change as to the number of cars coming in and out of the entrance. There are not site
and traffic issues here. Engineering has a good point as to the drainage easement.
Mike Matzko, Director Community Development, suggested this be viewed as a
variance situation. He said we should have a very good reason to do so. The more
exceptions we make without clear circumstances, the more problems we cause in the
future. Proper snow storage space is a significant consideration. Unless there is
compelling evidence, you should not recommend approval.
Chairman Evans said he understands what is being said and appreciates Mike's
comments. He said he is willing to support the double access because he thinks it is a
better solution for the project but we need something to justify the dual driveway.
Commissioner Sipes stated there is not a compelling enough reason to approve this.
We are tied by our guidelines.
Chairman Evans said he agreed but would be willing to look at further proof of a
hardship by looking at other designs and options at a future date. Commissioner Sipes
said there must be clear evidence.
Minutes of P&Z Meeting
December 5, 2000
Page 3
Commissioner Karow requested Engineering's comments be given to the Commission
in writing to see if they are valid in this context.
VIII. Work Session - Variance & Final Design
A. Lots 2 & 3, Avon Town Square
Project Type: Town Square Lofts
Applicant: Parkhill-lvins P.C.
Owner: Jack Berga / Al Williams
Address: 90 Benchmark Road
Commissioner Macik rejoined the Commission.
Tambi Katieb gave Staffs presentation. He commented there was a prior work session
on September 19. The applicant has returned with revisions. The project has been
revised significantly.
Staff believes there is a lack of adequate evidence of a hardship with this project for a
variance. There are safety concerns related to site distance and access to the site. A
25 -foot front setback on the west side of the building was incorrectly shown as 10 -feet
on the plans.
The massing of such a large, narrow building still does not relate well to the site.
Surface parking is discouraged under our guidelines. The underground parking shows
some design issues. Landscaping and planting appear minimal. The facade treatment
has been revised; however, the height continues to be unacceptable for this site. The
massing still requires several setbacks for which Staff does not find a hardship to
support them.
Staff recommends the applicant pursue a project on this site of much smaller scale not
requiring a variance, more compatible with surrounding structures and more sensitivity
to pedestrian access.
Applicant, Bruce Ivins with Parkhill Ivins Architects, introduced Al Williams, owner of the
property, Mark Donaldson, Stephen Graziano and Rick Travers, attorney.
Mr. Ivins commented we are still trying to promote the loft concept. This is not a
finished final design; we are in an evolutionary process. We have reduced the overall
mass of the building and have reduced the width. Some of the setback encroachments
you see on Benchmark Road are the stair towers and the elevator. The front wall has
been pulled back 10 -feet. The darker areas shown on the south side of the building are
balconies that would overhang into the required setback, above the first level of the
units.
Minutes of P&Z Meeting
December5, 2000
Page 4
They eliminated the roof garden and stepped down the units on the two ends to get
away from the "blocky" look. There is not a landscape plan. The pedestrian walkway is
in the process of being developed. In terms of the Variance, we have not approached
this as a hardship. We look at it as a way to enable the pedestrian walkway and work
with some of the other projects like Lot 61 and the Confluence.
A massing model was shown to the Commission to show how the building will be
viewed with other nearby projects.
Mark Donaldson commented they have been working with an unknown; the Avon Town
Center plans. It is difficult to relate to a plan we have not seen. Do we try and develop
a building as a stand-alone project with the existing zoning with no variances? This is
one of the few lots in the Town Center that is undeveloped and is not a PUD.
Rick Travers, attorney, stated the application did not reference a hardship. The statute
and Colorado law permits the Town to grant variances like this for the convenience of
the public. It would allow the developer and the Town to negotiate something that is
appropriate for everyone. The Town has the opportunity to grant the variance for a
public purpose.
Chairman Evans said there are two separate items to look at. We need to give
comments on the architecture, massing, style, and this project as a standalone building.
The second thing to consider is with respect to a Variance. Lot 61 is hopeful that a
major pedestrian walkway will come through their building; but it is not guaranteed. The
Seasons and VA also has a possibility of the bridge going through their building. He he
is not willing to consider a Variance until there is a commitment for the orientation of the
bridge. It is premature to look at a standalone project.
Mr. Donaldson said we want to initiate a process that we can go forward with together.
Should we abandon the idea of a pedestrian way or enhance it and make it better? We
are looking for direction from you.
Chairman Evans commented the Commission has not been involved in the Town
Center plan, but would like to be.
IX. Other Business
A. Staff Approvals:
1. Lot 87, Block 1, Wildridge
2431 Old Trail Road
Site Modification - Additional Driveway
Minutes of P&Z Meetfng
December 5, 2000
Page 5
2. Lot 47, Block 1, 410 Benchmark at Beaver Creek
410 Nottingham Road
Landscape Revision - NightStar Project
3. Lot 8, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
331 Nottingham Road
Additional Parking - Approved by the Homeowners Association
4. Lot 54, Block 3, Wildridge
4420 West Wildridge Road
Roof with Asphalt Shingles
5. Tract N, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
950 Beaver Creek Blvd.
Landscape Revisions — ERWSD Wastewater Treatment Plant
6. Lot 1, Block 1, Wildridge
2000 Wildridge Road
Landscape Modification for Rocking Horse Ridge
7. Lot 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
110 Buck Creek Road, Cottonwood Resort
Seasonal Christmas Tree Lot
8. Avon Center at Beaver Creek
100 West Beaver Creek Blvd.
Revision of Site Modifications - Cell Antennas
B. Sign Permits:
1. Lot 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek
90 Benchmark Road, Avon Town Square
"Wells Fargo" Sign
X. Adjourn
Commissioner Fehlner moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Sipes
seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned
at 8:17 p.m.
Minutes of P&Z Meeting
December 5, 2000
Page 6
Respectfully submitted,
Cecelia Fenton
Recording Secretary
APPROVED: January 2001
Chris Evans L//c
Chairman
Andrew Karo
Secretary
Minutes of P&Z Meeting
December 5, 2000
Page 7