Loading...
PZC Minutes 06-19-2007 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission �Meeting Minutes for June 19, 2007 VONAvon Town Council Chambers C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - Work Session with Avon Town Council - - Work Session - Madison Partners PUD Review Property Location: Highway 6 & 24 Applicant: Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC /Owner. • Craig Folson Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a revised plan for a 112 -unit condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. This application was reviewed with a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission's February 20, 2007 meeting. This is a revised proposal, and there is limited information being proposed. Matt Pielsticker revealed that there was no formal presentation by staff and documentation was provided in the Commissioner packets. Tab Bonidy, TAB Associates, requested the Commission to gather around pictures hung on the wall. Greg Macik demonstrated changes from the original presentation, commented that landscaping would be used to hide the base of the building, and the decreased height of the building. Commission comments included the competition of a restaurant not in the Town Core might be inappropriate, using native Colorado vegetation, the shotcrete wall, traffic generation by a restaurant, and the LEED certification proposed. Bette Todd, Canyon Run resident, commented that she was contacted to give input on the project to the developers and stated that the project was very large, asked if the Commission felt it fit the Avon concept of development, the project does not step back to the hillside, significant engineering was needed for the 40% slope, didn't believe the restaurant was an issue, and the developer had been trying to get together with the residents. Commissioner Goulding commented that Leeds certification was presented when the project was done and the pedestrian connection to the Town. Commissioner Struve agreed with Commissioner Goulding regarding a quality material and architectural design. Commissioner Struve continued with concern regarding parking. Commissioner Lane commented that he would like to see the perspective from the road, and an effort to link this project to the Town. Commissioner Green would like to see how the parking gets resolved; has concerns with the number of units; affordable housing was of key importance, possible restaurant use was questioned; an improved pedestrian connection to Avon's core was important; and the reduction in massing was the right direction. Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission �Meeting Minutes for June 19, 2007 VONAvon Town Council Chambers C O L O R A D O Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - Work Session with Avon Town Council - - Work Session - Madison Partners PUD Review Property Location.: Highway 6 & 24 Applicant. Larry Vineyard, Premier Holdings LLC / Owner- Craig Folson Description: The applicant, Premier Property Holdings LLC, is proposing a revised plan for a 112 -unit condominium project, including a restaurant, on the Folson Annexation Parcel. This application was reviewed with a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission's February 20, 2007 meeting. This is a revised proposal, and there is limited information being proposed. Matt Pielsticker revealed that there was no formal presentation by staff and documentation was provided in the Commissioner packets. Tab Bonidy, VAG, requested the Commission to gather around pictures hung on the wall. Greg Macik demonstrated changes from the original presentation, commented that landscaping would be used to hide the base of the building, and the decreased height of the building. Commission comments included the competition of a restaurant not in the Town Core might be inappropriate, using native Colorado vegetation, the shotcrete wall, traffic generation by a restaurant, and the LEED certification proposed. Bette Todd, Canyon Run resident, commented that she was contacted to give input on the project to the developers and stated that the project was very large, asked if the Commission felt it fit the Avon concept of development, the project does not step back to the hillside, significant engineering was needed for the 40% slope, didn't believe the restaurant was an issue, and the developer had been trying to get together with the residents. Commissioner Goulding commented that Leeds certification was presented when the project was done and the pedestrian connection to the Town. Commissioner Struve agreed with Commissioner Goulding regarding a quality material and architectural design. Commissioner Struve continued with concern regarding parking. Commissioner Lane commented that he would like to see the perspective from the road, and an effort to link this project to the Town. Commissioner Green would like to see how the parking gets resolved; has concerns with the number of units; affordable housing was of key importance, possible restaurant use was questioned; an improved pedestrian connection to Avon's core was important; and the reduction in massing was the right direction. Commissioner Smith stated the restaurant was an issue along with parking concerns. Commissioner Green would like to hear from the community. - Regular Meeting - II. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:50 pm. III. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of 'Commissioner Foster and Commissioner Evans. IV. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. V. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts to disclose. VI. Consent Agenda • Approval of the June 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes with the following corrections per Commissioner Green: page 1, last paragraph, end of 7" line, the word 'and' to be replaced by 'than'; page 5, East Avon Draft Plan, reword to read "is Avon Road the line of demarcation we want to have between a higher and a lower part of Town?"; and, last sentence under East Avon Draft Plan should read that the "message" was to the Orion Group what was being proposed was not in scale and in keeping with what is in the Comp Plan or in the proposed East Town Development Plan. Commissioner Green moved to return to the next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting with revised June 5"', 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes to reflect Commissioner Green's revamp request. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed 4-0 with Commissioner Goulding abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. VII. PUD Amendment— NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road Applicant: Land Planning Collaborative /Owner. Frank Hamel Description: The applicant is proposing an amendment to the Wildridge PUD. The proposal is to rezone Lot 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision from the currently entitled 3 duplexes (or 1 duplex and 1 four-plex) to six single-family residences. The six newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes and restricted to 5,000 square feet. Design and building standards would be tied to the new properties. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission along with additional letters from the public. Tambi Katieb, Land Planning Collaborative, introduced the members of his team and an outline of his presentation. Mr. Katieb began with a pictorial demonstration of the project framework, area slopes, site constraints, grading and roads in the area. Gerald Miramonte, Miramonte Architects, approached the podium to discuss the building footprint, the slope survey analysis and access solutions to the site. Mr. Katieb commented on the proposed architecture of heavy timbers and presented criteria for public benefit. Mr. Katieb continued that the project was consistent with the Design Review Guidelines and staging was discussed. Commissioner Struve questioned the pump house and water mains. Mr. Katieb replied that it would not be impacted by construction of these lots. Commissioner Smith questioned un -buildable area. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING Anne Clark, 5021 Wildridge Road East resident, provided a letter regarding this project to the Commission and approached the podium regarding her concern with the number of homes on the far end of the property and mentioned the concern of her neighbor, the Reese's, and another neighbor, Scott Rella whose kitchen would be impacted and mentioned his concern with the close proximity of the homes to the property line. Ms. Clark mentioned the wildlife corridor was an issue. Sherry Peach, 5183 Longsun resident, approached the podium to comment that the west side had a 5 home density and it seemed very dense. Ms. Peach continued that the natural environment needed to be maintained and site disturbance needed to be minimized. Brian Nolan, Longsun cul-de-sac resident, revealed that he agreed with Commissioner Green that as development novice, it is difficult to perceive and requested that Mr. Katieb walk him through the proposed development. Mr. Nolan questioned the approval process for the PUD and the variance with Commissioner Green responding on procedure. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Green began commissioner review by agreeing to the size and grading of the site, commented that the applicant had to work closely with the neighborhood, that neighbors voiced a density problem and that the applicant's proposal was a better plan than originally proposed. Commissioner Green also suggested sketch up to Mr. Miramonte as a quick trick, expressed that the site was very difficult, concerned with cuts, agreed with staff findings, and there was a need to honor the land by watching how it was cut, filled and mitigated. Commissioner Lane commented that the presentation was well thought out, addressed the town's needs, concerned with the retaining wall's visual, deed restricted unit — in like with the other structures on site, importance was massing and its presentation to the neighbors, and elevations from the road to the neighbors would be beneficial. Commissioner Green voiced that a 3 dimensional view of this project could show the neighborhood what they had in mind on such a complicated site. Commissioner Struve commented that the two lots are like apples and oranges, 150 AMI and not 200 Ami, too much density on west side, 5000 sq ft with the garage was acceptable, roadway cut would be a real challenge and it would be desirable to have bear cut instead of retaining walls. Commissioner Goulding agreed with the approach of the access, allocation of density was an issue, another dwelling unit on the east side, affordable housing unit was a great idea, proponent of 'green' building, and commented that the developer was heading in the right direction but density was an issue. Commissioner Smith agreed with the strategy of what the developer was trying to do and Lot 38 had a lot of massing, massing models would be encouraged. Commissioner Green brought up concern with the wildlife mitigation through Wildridge and he would like to see it put on the table and identified. Mr. Katieb commented that there are landscaping directions that would address wildlife mitigation. Mr. Miramonte mentioned that he created a corridor, at his personal residence between himself and his neighbor, to accommodate a wildlife corridor. Commissioner Struve moved to table Item VII, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Lots 38 & 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road with Commissioner Green seconding and the motion passed unanimously with a 5 — 0 vote. VIII. Sketch Plans - Wildridge Subdivision A. Lot 3, Western Sage Single -Family Property Location: Lot 3, Western Sage PUD / 5205 Longsun Lane Applicant: John G. Martin/ Owner Ted Leach, Western Sage Partners, LLC Description: Sketch Design for a Single -Family residence in the Western Sage PUD. Lot is accessed from private drive off cul-de-sac on Longsun Lane. The Design features a 2 -car garage, European style design with wood siding, stucco/stone siding, and large simple roof form. Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report. Jeff Manley, architect, approached the podium to address this application. Mr. Manley began by commenting on the differences of the three homes. Commissioner Green began commissioner review by commenting that he liked the design, any changes made were minute and not significant enough, too cookie cutter. Commissioner Smith mentioned that the homes were to be different in design. Commissioner Green agreed with staff that he was concerned with the precedent this home would create, needed more diversity and not more conformity. Commissioner Lane materials are there and form, too, but not enough differentiation. Commissioner Struve commented that the penetrations are different but the massing was the same, suggested picking up some of the design of the Ruther residence. Commissioner Goulding voiced its cookie cutter look and not complimentary, concerned with massing and roof forms. Ted Leach, one of the owners, commented that Lots 1 and 2 were approved with slight variations and questioned if Lot 3 had to be different, too. Commissioner response was that all homes were to be different. Commissioner Green commented that a clipped roof was a trick to diversity. B. Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Property Location: Lot 12, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4080 Wildridge Road West Applicant: Michael Hazard /Owner. Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Sketch Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in Stucco and wood to diminish scale. Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Struve questioned the site coverage on CD 2.2 areas 5 on both sides. Commissioner Green questioned the driveway easement; Mr. Barnes responded that easement was a utility easement. Michael Hazard, applicant representative, approached the podium and introduced the site to the Commission and acknowledged awareness of the utilities in the easement and the responsibility to remove driveway at owner's expense to access. Mr. Hazard continued by addressing staff concerns with access and the neighbor's impact of the development — i.e., headlights, snow storage; and continued with discussing the courtyard concept, flat roof design and other site issues. Ernie and Bonnie Atlas, Lot 14 resident — 4151 Little Point, approached the podium to express that his initial impression was negative on this project. Mrs. Atlas commented to her husband that this design might compliment the Atlas home, the access road would be within 15 feet to their home, old trees would be removed to accommodate the road, and Mr. Atlas voiced safety concern for his grandchildren playing so close to the road, water drainage would go directly onto his property, not enough room for a snowplow to plow snow away from his property, light pollution was an issue with the deer, and headlights would be in his dining room, voiced concern with emergency vehicle access, and suggested the project move westward in order to accommodate the 25 foot setback. Mr. Atlas voiced that a hardship variance be granted to the neighbors to move the road 10 to 15 feet. Victoria Dauphnie, Wildridge Road West resident, her property overlooks this land, and requested that the hardship variance not be approved as it would impact her property, size down the project to accommodate the driveway, aesthetics of the buildings were in keeping of the neighbors but that this neighbor was unique to other surrounding homes in this area. Peter Warren, 4181 Beaver Creek Point, commented that approach in conformance to codes and guidelines, does it integrate with the neighborhood, and how large a mass it was, and the character of the architecture regarding the consistency, and sun and view impact. Mr. Warren continued with concern for easements of the town and the utilities. Gerald Miramonte, residence across from this project, commented with support of this project, revealed it was fun, not boring, novel connection of the units, and the plan was interesting. Mike Kelso, lives across from this project, supported Mr. Atlas' concerns with this project regarding easements and four residences on a ten foot road was a issue. Commissioner review began with Commissioner Goulding commenting that it was a large cluster of four identical units, access to the joint lots was an issue; perhaps shift it with two accesses. Commissioner Struve could not approve the driveway, setback variance has never been supported by the commission, greater differentiation between the duplexes was encouraged, colors would be key and should compliment the abode on Lot 14, and agreed that there were other ways to take advantage of the lot. Commissioner Lane approved of the individual massing, sketch makes project look very hard, appreciated the different style; materials would be a big part, and the need to address the neighbor's concerns. Commissioner Green liked the concept, a community duplex, interior courtyards create a sense of community within the duplexes, not hung up on the materials, potential to do a sophisticated color scheme that integrates with natural color, not in favor of variance, concerned with driveway over easement, fine with the architectural styling, and needed refining. Commissioner Smith mentioned that the two duplexes were identical and it was a concern. Mr. Hazard responded that he prefer to create a vocabulary of materials to provide differentiation. C. Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision 14080 Wildridge Road West Applicant: Michael Hazard /Owner. Advanced Home Technologies, LLC Description: Sketch Design for a duplex development accessed via a private entry court off of Little Point. The design is contemporary with multiple flat roof elements. The forms are clad in stucco and wood to diminish scale. See comments on Lot 12 above. IX. MinorProject- ShedAddition Property Location: Lot 41-13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road Applicant. James G. Downs, Tuff Shed, Inc. / Owner. Tony Prior Description: Construct a shed in the side yard of the subject property. The shed exterior finish will match the existing residence. Jared Barnes presented the staff report. ' James Downs, Tuff Shed, approached the podium and explained the need for the shed was to contain the owner's possessions. Mr. Downs continued that the building would not be visible from the roadway and it was not a substantial structure. Commissioner Goulding commented that this is not the right solution to the applicant's storage issues by use of an ancillary building. Commissioner Struve would have to see this bumped up against the house and not a separate building. Commissioner Lane the structure was not right for the site. Commissioner Green commented that the owner has a toy problem and not a garage problem, and a shed was not an appropriate solution and it sets an inappropriate precedent. Commissioner Smith agreed with staff and it would set a precedent. Commissioner Struve moved to deny Item IX, Minor Project - Shed Addition, Property Location: Lot 41-13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4330 Flat Point Road. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion. All commissioners were in favor and the motion passed 5 — 0. X. East Avon Draft Plan Description: Detailed review of Chapter 1 (Introduction/Background), and the Land Use portion of Chapter 2 of the Town Center East District Plan. The draft plan is dated May 10, 2007. Matt Pielsticker discussed the memo presented to the Commission and was looking for comfort with pages 1 through 24. Larry Brooks, Town Manager, revealed his concern with written comments being handed to staff and recommended that to close the circle with a group discussion. Commissioner Green began by discussing the introduction — pedestrian circulation did not make sense; tad' from bottom — common architectural character should be replaced with interesting architectural character; planning considerations ie Leeds; page 9 — paragraph 2 — building massing and footprints, etc.... needed a better disclaimer; third bullet point from bottom — district character needed to be better communicated, more specific, what is being encouraged; page 11, 3`d bullet point — what does it mean, don't sell to second homeowners needed to be articulated better; next bullet point third line — floor to ceiling ratio needed better definition; page 12 strike 'big box' in first bullet — mid size anchors and no big box, use retailers up to 15,000 sq ft; 'minimizing gaps in retail' - what about cool alleys, wrapping corners, arcade type; page 14 — under existing residential — so what to the 14 units came from; page 19 — proposed commercial use table — convenience goods, what does the term mean and is there a better term for it; page 22 — graphic — needs more character illustrate pedestrian ways, etc., plaza shouldn't be represented as four walls, needed to be more touchy feely; have medical facilities closer to transportation and more accessible; page 23 — tenants plaza overall — encourage the use of outdoor space; book stores are not shown on plan; too sector-ized; post office needs to be on list; plaza overall could use more definition; omit pages 21 and 23; diagrams on page 22 could be eliminated; page 24 use pictures of building and not what is presented; page 7 schematic diagrams were unanimously great; page 25 — planning principles should define size of sidewalks; page 25 — 15t bullet point needs to encourage use; page 25 — 2nd bullet point — do not identify Christie Lodge but reinforce the concept; make an attempt to make the town LEED certified by presenting certain concepts; coversheet illustrated needs to be redesigned; need to state this plan is merely guidance; page 5 — need to emphasize full time residential; page 5 — need to emphasize varying building height; page 10 — item 15 — needs to be reworded; page 11 —151 bullet — expand and create comfortable full time residential uses; page 15, last line, 2nd line — define residential, strike higher residency rate; XI. Other Business • Sutter fence was discussed, project was built over the last weekend, application met the intent of the fence guidelines, less than 2000 sq ft, two horizontal beams, does not impede wildlife, and planning to stain to match house. Dominic Mauriello, duplex neighbor, had no objection to the fence. Next step was to check square footage. Issue was that he did not comply with procedure. Other neighbor was concerned with fence. Commissioner Struve suggested that the Sutter's needed to come up with a remedy. Commissioner Green commented that the issue was that they built a fence without approval. Commissioner Goulding voiced that they need to apply for the fence and P & Z needs to approve, or they would need to rip it out. Matt Gennett revealed that P & Z could call up the Staff Approval. Commissioner Green suggested calling back the fence for Planning & Zoning Commission approval, Commissioner Goulding seconded. All were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. • Walkin the Dog — engineered plans are anticipated for the July 17d' meeting, they are trying to work out the access, and they need to get approval for what was ti already done. Commissioner Green voiced that she needs to know to come back and Commissioner Struve get her to bring her plans in. Commissioner Green — the Planning and Zoning Commission has he power to bring back the SRU. Commissioner Green requested Ms. Lehman be at the 17"' meeting to review what is happening on site. Commissioner Green commented on the construction project at Bear Trap — Matsen project — materials on bike path, move onto site. XII. Adjourn Commissioner Goulding motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Terry Smith Vice Chairman Phil Struve Secretary