Loading...
PZC Minutes 07-17-2007 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission A'�� Meeting Minutes for July 17, 2007 VONAvon Town Council Chambers C O L 0 R A U U Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - Regular Meeting - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Lane. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item VIII, Zoning Text Amendment, was moved to end of agenda, behind Item IX, Urban Renewal Plan, and before Other Business. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts to disclose. V. Consent Agenda Approval of the June 5, 2007 Meeting Minutes. Approval of the June 19, 2007 Meeting Minutes. Commissioner Green motioned to approve the Consent Agenda with the corrections to the Minutes. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion and the motion passed with a 5-0 vote. Commissioner Foster abstained due to her absence at the meeting. VI. PUD Amendment/ Hamel— CONTINUED Property Location: Lots 38 and 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 fourplex) to six single-family residences. The six newly platted lots are proposed with building envelopes and restricted to 5,000 square feet. This application was tabled from the June 19, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Commissioner Goulding questioned the AMI figures regarding income. Tambi Katieb, Land Planning Collaborative, approached the podium to present this application, discuss the slope analysis, and review issues identified at the last meeting. Gerry Miramonte, Architect, continued the presentation by discussing the buildable area, access points, mentioned that the building forms were placed for land use and not the desired constructed project. Mr. Katieb continued with a three dimensional demonstration of the site. Mr. Katieb commented on the ECO Build, presented a graph on the buffer retaining wall, reviewed current and proposed zoning, square footages, building heights and setbacks for each lot. Conversation revolved around the height of the buildings, coverage, deed restricted unit and its issues, what are the benefits to the Town, and deed restricted unit only upon initial purchase. Elsa Reiss, 5021 Wildridge Road East resident below project, commented that the western part looked like a city with five houses together, expressed that some should be moved to the east, and didn't think it was the proper site design. Janet Kozan, 5191 Longsun Lane, wondered why she wasn't noticed for the meeting, project was too dense, agreed with the comments of Ms. Reiss, Lot 39 looked like a city dwelling with modular homes, thought duplexes would be better, and was against the variance in this project. Brian Nolan, 5191 B Longsun, hasn't formed an opinion and was representing four other neighbors, expressed that the 320 foot wall was enormous, and he did receive the public notice. Eric Petrillo, 5134 Longsun Lane, size of the buildings are disturbing to him, expressed that maybe the rules need to be changed, consideration of views for existing neighbors was necessary, and huge duplexes are ruining Wildridge. Commissioner Evans responded that the setbacks are consistent with all zoning in Wildridge. Tami Merto, 5134 Longsun Lane, commented that they never envisioned such a project on this site. Commissioner Green commented that the burden to break up the massing was on the developer, get the project to be what people move to Wildridge for, architecture could soften the project and the walls were an issue, and more spatial considerations were needed to insure the integrity of the neighborhood. Commissioner Smith voiced concern with the density on the west end, 5 buildings on one end was too much, would like to see one go and the little lots being created were too little. Commissioner Foster commented 3 homes in lieu of a duplex was too much, deed restricted unit was lost, its okay. Commissioner Struve expressed that Zoning got it right when they plotted out the lots, Lot 38 was good for a duplex, retaining wall was too visible, footprint was excessive, sited other developments and their outcomes, deed restricted unit confuses the issue, and why can't the 30 foot easement be vacated. Commissioner Goulding voiced that the deed restricted unit was not revealed as a benefit by the neighbors, thought the developer was attempting a cluster home situation but it was for smaller homes than those being presented, and does not support the amendment due to the density and the challenges of neighbor support. Commissioner Evans does not support the 6 to 6 trade off, sets a dangerous precedent, in favor of seeing one or two of the homesites removed, deed restricted unit be eliminated as such, does not see a benefit, project could benefit from removal of one or two sites, would like to see a study on the traversing lot particularly if two sites are eliminated, scar of 300 foot was enormous, and size of homes was excessive. Commissioner Struve motioned to table Item VI, PUD Amendment / Hamel, Property Location: Lots 38 and 39, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5032 & 5040 Wildridge Road East, Lot 110, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 3087 Wildridge Road. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with all Commissioners in favor. VII. PUD Amendment/ Sheraton Mountain Vista -.CONTINUED Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision /140 West Beaver Creek Boulevard AppiicanUOwner. Points of Colorado, Inc Description: A request for an amendment to the Lot C PUD to modify the existing property rights and zoning for Lots 2C, 3, 4, and 5 (Phase 1C). This application proposes to eliminate a 125 -room hotel, and increase the number of time-share units in the project's last phase of development. This application was last reviewed at the March 21, 2006 Commission meeting. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Commissioner Struve questioned lot definition. Kathryn Plouff, Vice President of Corporate Initiatives for Starwood Resorts, introduced herself and described how Starwood operates and their investment in Avon. Alexandr Sheyhket, architect, presented with the proposed development by presenting anticipated designs for retail space, parking, and commented that the project was reasonably consistent with the PUD. Mr.Sheyhket continued with demonstrating building sections, elevation studies, and sketches of the project. Ruth Borne, attorney for the developer, approached the podium to discuss residential densities, both existing PUD and proposed PUD; explained the reduction of commercial square footage and revealed that the parking spaces remain the same although the residences and commercial square footage have been reduced. Ms. Borne continued that the 2n° and 3'" floors of the office building were to be changed to condominiums from office space and the first floor would remain restaurant space. Ms. Borne reiterated for the record that plans were submitted May 4, 2007, a PUD application was submitted on May 4, 2007, supplemental information to PUD criteria No. 3 which is also contained in the application and referenced supplemental information which has tabs No. 1, copy of the PUD Development Plan which was approved in February of 2000 which was referenced throughout the application as the existing ordinance, Tab No. 2 has the original Development Agreement for Confluence and Lot C, No. 3 was the ordinance approving this PUD which was considered an Amendment to the Development Agreement, No. 4 was the actual Development Agreement and No. 5 was the proposed Second Amendment to the Development Agreement with a strike through version a6 well as a clean version; and, No. 6 was the fiscal analysis prepared by Price Waterhouse and Stan Bernstein was also used in developing the numbers. Ms. Borne continued by revealing for the record a fax submitted by fax and email to Matt Pielsticker clarifying some points in the Staff Report: Item One: Vesting was based upon when construction commences and not occupancy; and Item Two: Was in regard to the Walker Parking Study, page 7 stated that the demand for parking is 339 and 374 are to be provided. Commissioner Evans asked for rational behind the elimination of the hotel in lieu of timeshare. Ms. Borne responded that there is a higher demand for timeshare. Commissioner Evans continued by questioning if there was an analysis comparing and contrasting hotel usage versus timeshare, which includes an evaluation of its revenue stream to the Town in 10 to 15 years from now. Stan Bernstein was reviewing the situation currently. f — Commissioner Foster expressed that there was a clear plan in place in the old PUD with a greater mix and was concerned with losing hotel and office space in the proposed PUD. Ms. Borne responded that the restaurant was relocated to the Main Street plan and the timeshare would be rented similar to hotel rooms. Commissioner Green questioned the additional 30 accommodation units and Mr. Sheyhket responded that timeshare did not increase the density. Commissioner Green questioned employee housing and Ms. Borne replied that some units would be leased and others sold, 20 units with an average size of 250 sq ft. Commissioner Goulding voiced concern for parking and was responded that 339 was suggested by the Walker Parking and consistent with the Confluence parking stats; can not determine if this was a benefit for the Town. Commissioner Struve needed the financial analysis to determine the impact to the Town, and setbacks needed to be addressed to avoid 100 foot walls. Commissioner Foster commented that an analysis was needed, condos are still bought as second homes but full time residency should be addressed. Commissioner Smith would like to see the numbers before proceeding, agreed with office to condos. Commissioner Green expressed that the numbers needed to be looked at, restaurant location was good, and would be focused on the design. Commissioner Evans voiced no issues with the application and elevations needed more consistency. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING There was no comment from the Public. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Green moved to table Item VII, PUD Amendment / Sheraton Mountain Vista, Property Location: Lot C, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision /140 West Beaver Creek Boulevard, until such time as the financial information was available from Staff. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. VIII. Zoning Text Amendment Applicant. John Dunn, Town Attorney Description: Text amendment proposal concerning the applicability of the Town of Avon Municipal Code to public projects. Eric Heidemann read an abbreviated version of the Amendment to the Commission: "Section 17.04.080 makes the Town's zoning applicable to governmental agencies 'to the extent permitted by law'. The proposed amend amendment to that section would delete that language. It is unclear why the language was included in the first place. The concern is that the inclusion of the language could raise some issue as to the relationship of the Town's zoning and the requirements of state law. The Town of Avon is a home rule municipality. As such, it possesses the power to preempt state law in areas of local and municipal concern. Planning and zoning is a traditional area of local and municipal concern, and the courts for the most part have allowed home rule legislation to preempt state statute (except with respect to vested rights) .....° Attached to the Memo was Ordinance No. 07-07 which reflects the language noted in the memo. Commissioner Green motioned to approve Item VIII, Zoning Text Amendment, recommending approval to Town Council. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. IX. Sketch Design Plans - Wildridge Subdivision A. Lot 112, Single -Family Property Location: Lot 112, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / Beaver Creek Point Applicant: Bill Nutkins /Owner BBG Investments Description: Sketch Design for a Single -Family residence in the Wildridge Subdivision. The Lot is accessed off of Beaver Creek Point. The design features a 5,600 square foot residence with a 3 -car garage, and wood, stucco, and stone siding. Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report to the Commission Bill Nutkins, VAG architect, approached the podium to address the project and began that the scale was wrong on the site plan and the driveway was fixed. Commissioner questions revolved around the landscaping details. Commissioner Green commented that the project was pushed to the limit of the site. Mr. Nutkins responded that views were the reason that the home was positioned as it was; the lot was small, .36 acres, site and elevation was sensitive to the drop in the southwest corner to keep the roof down as you come across to the northeast corner. Commissioner Goulding suggested massaging tree locations. Commissioner Struve commented to make landscaping look more natural, place toward street side and the entrance gives a good strong statement. Commissioner Foster voiced concern with the retaining wall in the easement/setback. Commissioner Green mentioned that landscaping needed to be addressed. B. Lot 69, Duplex Property Location: Lot 69, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5351 Ferret Lane Applicant/ Owner David Forenza Description: Sketch Design for a duplex residence in the Wildridge Subdivision. The Lot is accessed off of Ferret Lane. The design features a total of 8,900 square foot building with wood, stucco, and stone siding. Jared Barnes presented the Staff Report. David Forenza, owner, approached the podium. Commissioner Green revealed that the house was too large for the site, concerned with the boulder wall and landscaping plan, the south elevation was too uniform, and roof form too simple — it needed interest. Cbmmissioner Smith commented that the north elevation was repetitive as well as the east elevation. Commissioner Foster agreed with the need to scale down the project. Commissioner Struve voiced that the driveway and landscaping are an issue, west elevation has two windows in the dirt, west elevation left side roof massing was huge and needed to be broken up, and there were too many gables. Commissioner Evans was concerned with the stone veneer at the base of the home and a need for a better base element for a home of this size. X. East Avon Draft Plan Description: Detailed review of the remainder of Chapter 2 (Physical Plan), pages 25- 43. This review will also include Chapter 3 (Implementation) of the Town Center East District Plan. The draft plan is dated May 10, 2007. Last review took place at the Commission's June 19, 2007 meeting. This item has been table to the Special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for July 31, 2007. XI. Urban Renewal Plan Description: First review of the Town Center West Area Urban Renewal Plan for review and recommendation to Town Council. A public hearing before the Town Council to adopt the Plan is scheduled for August 14'h 2007. The purpose of this meeting is to allow the Commission sufficient time to review, ask questions, and provide comments prior to the August 14°i public hearing and formal adoption of the Plan. Eric Heidemann presented Staffs Memo to the Commission. Commissioner Evans questioned why East Avon was excluded and what does that mean. The Urban Renewal Plan was to be taken home and reviewed prior to the August 7, 2007, meeting. XII. Other Business • Walkin' the Dog - Re -review requested at June 19, 2007 meeting. Matt Gennett presented the Staff Memo to the Commission by beginning with the historical details of this project. Commissioner Green asked if Staff has looked at the plans from the original application to the current plans. Commissioner Evans mentioned that this was not about the operation of the business, the dogs or anything else, but is solely about compliance with the conditions of the Special Review Use Permit that was granted pertaining to the grading for access and the site disturbance that has occurred on the adjacent property. Commissioner Green asked why Ms. Lahman graded when told not to. Ms. Lahman responded that Steve Miller, engineer, had spoke with Norm Wood, Town of Avon Engineer, about the grading. Shane Pegram, TOA engineer, worked with Mr. Wood on this project. Original submittal required an engineered plan with a stamp and Mr. Miller responded that he would not stamp the plans since there were no improvements, Mr. Miller was going to install a fence and there was minimal grading. Mr. Pegram gave Mr. Miller the needs of the site and the current plan with reference for vehicle access to the site. The Town of Avon was looking for safe access to the site. Commissioner Evans commented that a material representation was made that there was no impact to the existing site and an engineered drawing for access has still not been submitted to Staff. Mr. Pegram commented on the erosion issue, its need to vegetate the hillside to prevent erosion to the ditch line, the 1.5 to 1 requires matting to re -vegetate, and the need for watering to make it happen. Conversation continued on the need for a landscaping plan to know where the applicant was going, what was going to be provided and where items would be planted and make the scar disappear. Commissioner Goulding commented that the Geotech said to get everything to 1.5 to 1 lay back has to be reveged, has to have a mat on it, has a seeping and needs to be addressed before the snow flies, allow applicant to start the process tomorrow, and submit the plan that matches it. Commission Goulding motioned to accept the Condition #4 from Resolution No. 06-14 has been adequately satisfied with some additional detail required and any cut that is out there needs to be at a minimum 1.5 to 1 and in all areas that are disturbed are to have mats and seed mix and that the applicant agrees to hand water as recommended by the landscaper. Work to start immediately with a plan in at the next scheduled meeting. Commissioner Struve seconded. All in favor passed unanimously • Lot 75, Block 4, Wildridge: Fence Staff Approval Review — Jared Barnes summarized Staffs Memo to the Commission. Bob Sutter approached the podium to address the fence via reading his son's letter. The letter contained detail of the application process, acknowledged that he did not build the approved fence, voiced hostility to his neighbor's opposition to the fence and his right to build it, and requested tabling so he could appear before the Commission. Commissioner Evans addressed Wildridge Covenants by stating they are not enforced by the Town or by the Commission, and the method to enforce the protective covenants was by legal means. The Commission enforces the Town's Guidelines. Jack Gardner of 5723 Wildridge Road, and 7 full time property owners oppose the fence since it does not comply with the guidelines, they have dogs and kids as well, commented that Mr. Sutter has thumbed his nose at the Commission and built what he wanted, fence delineates the property, and the fence would be much more apparent in winter. Gerry Herman, 5531 Coyote Ridge, voiced that this fence does not comply with guidelines and believes that rules need to be enforced. Mr. and Mrs. Hricik, lives directly above the Sutters, were here about a fence that does not belong there as it is not split rail, chicken wire was added and this would set a dangerous precedent. In addition, their dog cries all day outside in the fence. Commissioner Evans commented that fences have specific guidelines and the applicant has requested to table in order to be present. Commissioner Struve mentioned that the Commission has been consistent in its fence approvals and Mr. Sutter did not get a permit yet but continued building. Commissioner Green voiced concern for the size of the fence and the tone of spite in the letters submitted. Commissioner Smith commented that the mass of fence is too much, chicken wire is disappointing, and Mr. Sutter ignored the requirements of the Town. Commissioner Foster mentioned the risk of setting a precedent, the fence was too large and chicken wire inappropriate. Commissioner Goulding commented that someone went ahead and did not follow procedure; his decision on this issue would be based on the 7 criteria presented in the Staff Report. Commissioner Evans agreed with the two separate issues. Commissioner Green moved to table this issue until the next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. The motion to table passed 5-1 with Commissioner Struve opposing. • July 31, 2007 Special Meeting to review Town Center Design Guidelines XIII. Adjourn Commissioner Foster motioned to adjourn. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Chris Evans aw' Chairman Phil Struve YVAY ft3 � Secretary