Loading...
PZC Minutes 06-03-2008 (2)HEAF of The VALLO AVON WORK SESSION (5:OOpm - 5:30pm) Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for June 3, 2008 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road Description: Discussion of Regular Agenda Items. Work session is open to the public. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:37 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Struve. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item VIA, Minor Project for Ticino Restaurant Vent Terminations - was moved to the Consent Agenda. There were no other additions or amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest disclosed. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the May 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes • Item VIA, Minor Project for Ticino Restaurant Vent Terminations Commissioner Green requested clarification of the correct wording in the May 20, 2008 Meeting Minutes, Other Business, as follows: Commissioner Prince questioned the purview of his discretion as a Commissioner, not his "rights". Commissioner Green moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion and it passed with a 4-0 vote; Commissioners Lane and Goulding abstained due to their absence from the May 20, 2008 Meeting. VI. Minor Projects A. Ticino Restaurant Vent Terminations Property Location: Lot A, Avon Center at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 100 W. BC Boulevard Applicant/ Owner. Daniel Description: The owner of the new restaurant is proposing to install mechanical equipment on the first floor roofs of the existing Avon Center building. The mechanical equipment that is proposed to be placed on the shed roof will be enclosed with a stucco dormer to match the existing building. Discussion: Discussion during Work Session. Action: Approved on the Consent Agenda. B. Ruggs Benedict Property Location: Lot 32, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 810 Nottingham Applicant. Mark Donaldson / Owner Ester Wolff Trust Description: The applicant is proposing exterior modifications to the existing Ruggs Benedict building. The proposed changes are to architecturally enhance the entrances and windows on the south and east elevations, add a stone base to a portion of the south and east elevations, and repaint all of the elevations. Discussion: Victor Mark Donaldson approached the podium to explain that his firm is currently addressing comments from staff, and he would like to request a tabling of the application. Commissioner Evans asked if the north wall of the building and if it is being painted one color. He asked if it the north elevation could be broken up, and equal treatment be provided on all four sides of the building. The applicant explained that his firm is trying to address those issues, and that the tenant is doing the work and not the property owner. Action: Commissioner Goulding motioned to table, and commissioner Roubos seconds the motion. All Commissioners were in agreement and the motion passed unanimously. VII. Minor Project Update Snow Run Townhomes Property Location: Lot 43, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 520 Nottingham Road Applicant / Owner. Sye Curtis Description: This application is for work being done on Unit C of the Snow Run Townhomes. The work has been previously approved, but the design approval has expired. Discussion: Jared Barnes updated the Commission with the status of this design application. The design approval expired on June 1, 2008. Commissioner Goulding questioned if the April I", meeting minutes were clear as to the remedies, and possible fines for non-compliance. Staff responded that the meeting minutes were explicit. Sye Curtis, applicant, approached the podium and explained that he has been working on the project, and would like to continue the project. The materials have been purchased and are to be delivered in the next week or two. Sye explained that he has a schedule for construction, and the weather has slowed progress for this project with all of the snow this past winter. Commissioner Evans questioned when the project would be complete, and why there has been seemingly minimal progress. How can the Commission be assured that the project be complete, and when? Commissioner Roubos asked if Sye was working on the project by himself. Sye responded affirmatively. Commissioner Green asked Sye when he first new about the necessary work and what the timeframes were. Sye stated that he new upon purchase that there were improvements to the property and he was aware of the extensions that were granted at previous meetings. Commissioner Prince asked how far along the project stands, and the applicant responded that approximately 50% of the project is complete. Commissioner Prince again asked how long it would take to complete the work. Sye presented a construction schedule for the pVct to the Commissioners. The construction schedule indicated a final inspection on October 6 . Commissioner Prince questioned the legal remedy for this type of project and non-compliance. Eric Heidemann, Assistant Town Manager for Community Development, explained that cash or letter of credit up to 125% of the estimated construction cost from a reputable contractor could be retained. If the timeframe allotted to finish the project was not complied with the Town could complete the work. A lean on the property could be the end of the line. Action: Commissioner Goulding clarified his position and made the following motion: Within ten calendar days from this meeting, or not later than June 13d', a bid from a qualified contractor showing the cost estimated to complete work, will be provided to staff along with a cash security or letter of credit totaling 125% of said estimate. Additionally, the red tag will be lifted tomorrow in order to allow for continued work in the interim period. The completion date for the project is set to be Sept 2nd. Commissioner Prince clarified that the applicant will be required to find a reputable bidder, as determined by staff, and 125% of surety posted within 10 days. Prince asked the applicant what the ballpark number is and if he could produce the 125%. Discussion continued with respect to the remaining work, and that since the materials were already ordered the contractor simply schedules hours of labor. The letter of credit process could take one week. The motion was clarified that this is an extension to the design approval submittal; 125% bid of reputable contractor. If these conditions are not met in 10 calendar days, it will be a violation of Town Code and subject to remedies outlined therein. Commissioner Green seconds the motion and all commissioners were in favor. 6-0 vote. VIII. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK -3, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 62, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road Applicant/ Owner. Brian Judge, Orion Development Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the owner of the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed PUD is envisioned to be a contemporary mixed-use development including retail space, office space, residential and lodging in three new development buildings to be located on the site. Discussion: Matthew Gennett, Planning Manager, presented Staffs report to the Commission. He explained that this is the first redevelopment project the Town has ever reviewed. Mr. Gennett outlined the proposal and the development standards, including but not limited to the building locations, parking, phasing, and mixed-use vibrant character of development. The East Town Center plan was adopted prior to finding the application complete. The building height was presented, along with the street patterns and vehicular ways. The extension of Main Street is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gennett explained that the purpose of this hearing is to introduce the project to the Commission and the public. The bulk, height, mass, are being presented tonight. What we are looking at is the mix of uses, street patterns, footprints, and how these items address the principles in the East Town Center Plan and Comprehensive Plan. It was explained that Staff has identified some discrepancies with the plan set. Staff is reviewing the phasing plan, employee housing, traffic generation, engineering comments, financing mechanisms, and are looking forward to the development agreement and how that might be drafted. The recommendation to table a formal review to the June 17, 2008 meeting is to allow the application time respond to Staff and Commissioner comments. Mr. Gennett continued to outline the packet materials. Page 2 of Staffs report goes through the nuts and bolts of the application. Page 6 outlines the goals and policies of the East Town Center Plan. The report highlights each planning principle, and how this development responds to the plan. There needs to be a discussion as to what the Commission wants to see at the next hearing. Page 16 of the report contains the Comprehensive Plan goals. Mr. Gennett explained that Goals F.1 and F.2 merit discussion, to understand how attainable housing policies relate to this development plan. Page 18, Criteria 2, highlights the conformity with the design theme of the Town. Criteria 3 for review contemplates the adjacent bulk building height, etc. The 1.4 theme of this project could set a tone for the rest of the district, and not simply the immediate surrounding properties. Staff recommends tabling to the 17th. Pedro Campos, representing Orion Development, introduced the development team. Brian Judge, Orion Development, approached the podium to discuss the project's history. His team was encouraged over 2 1/2 years ago to look bigger, and to look at other redevelopment project possibilities in the area. He continued to explain that his team was been active in the financing districts, and participation in the processes involved with the East and West Avon workshops in the preceding years. Pedro Campos began a PowerPoint presentation. He reviewed the project goals, including: increased density, strengthened Main Street retail pedestrian environment, new multi -use landmark public space, enhancement of pedestrian circulation, clarification of auto circulation, and the elimination of surface parking lots that exist in the area. The background of the project was again highlighted. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan, and 2003 updated Comprehensive Plan both envision connecting west and east town centers. Between 2005 and 2007, consolidation of parcel ownership has taken place and the project site now totals approximately 5.4 acres of land. During the same time frame, the West Town Center Investment Plan, Urban Renewal Authority creation, and the East Town Center plan was being developed. Pedro explained that the development team has held four joint Town Council and Planning and Zoning Commission work sessions in 2006 and 2007. Meetings with staff and representatives have ensued throughout this timeframe. The Comprehensive Plan Community Framework diagram was presented to the Commission, highlighting the east -west Main Street configuration. Functionally extend Main Street into East Town Center was a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. The project site is located in high priority district number two. The existing and proposed parcel configurations were presented to the Commission. Tk3 and 65-A are the two TOA properties. The proposed reconfigured .86 acres of Right of Way land would be maintained with the new parcel and resulting Right of Way configuration. It was again pointed out that the Main Street alignment would effectively extend Main Street across Avon Road. The multi -event space in the middle of the development and sidewalk circulation were shown in the overall site plan. Service and deliveries were to be located on the east side of the south building, and west side of the north building, out of the public domain. Public art opportunities have been identified by the applicant, and the general quality of the streetscape environment. Building perspectives were presented in the Power Point presentation looking north through the north and east buildings (from south side of public plaza). The street level amenities and the mix of building materials were pointed out. A perspective looking south from above the Christie lodge property toward the railroad tracks was presented. Pedro explained that the goal of the building orientation and mass was to optimize views and solar orientation. Additional perspectives were presented, including: gateways of the project from major intersections, pedestrian oriented retail environment, place -making and public space studies, and solar orientation/shade studies. Chairman Evans opened the public hearing. Kent Seidel, owner of Loaded Joe's, approached the podium. Existing businesses and how these are built into the framework of the project was questioned. He explained his concern with limiting interruption of existing businesses during construction, and the phasing approach. Brian Judge explained that all of the tenants should approach him with those types of issues. Due to the straightening of Main Street, the current phasing shows the east building construction first. Brian's team is seeking other properties in the East Town Center for possible relocations. Kent continued that at grade parking is important to businesses such as Loaded Joes or Pazzos for quick pick-ups. Affordability of local businesses to lease the tenant spaces was a concern to Kent, as a local business owner. The public hearing was closed with no other comments. Commissioner Lane questioned how the public plaza would function. The intent of East Town Center plan is for view corridors to go straight through the plaza, and would like to keep the view corridor through the plaza. Pedro explained that a visual connection between East Town Center and West Town Center is one of the driving forces between the plaza and Main Street design. The plans indicate a 200' opening in the plaza to see across Avon road. Brian Judge re -iterated the teams concern with engaging the future park in front of the old Wal-Mart space. His team currently has Chapel Square under contract with a short closing window. If the closing went through it could help assure what type of extension of Main Street into the park could be realized. Commissioner Goulding commented on the following: the PUD process and evaluation of the criteria must be clear to the public and the Commission; the Comprehensive Plan implications and principles must be clear, and how the project meets these principles; parking will be looked at in detail; 2bdrm units will require two spaces; and feedback will be sought from the Town, neighbors, public utilities, and the most importantly from the general public. Commissioner Green expressed concern with how this development compliments the Town, and how the mix, retail, residential, and what we are getting. How is the residential mix including or excluding local residents (i.e. how big are the units)? How does this plan exceed or compliment the local environment. Commissioner Green mentioned that this is the time we determine mix of uses, and types of housing. Commissioner Evans explained that we are reviewing mass, height, and densities. Conflicts with the Design Guidelines were pointed out relating to roofs, and the massing/height of the buildings shown. Technical issues must be addressed including water rights, utilities, engineering, etc. Mr. Evans commented that the 12 employee housing units proposed are insufficient. Existing businesses must be maintained, and how the phasing affects the tenants must be addressed. The financial implications to the Town are extremely important to Commissioner Evans. He continued to explain that the phasing plan is inadequate, and that the Town amenities need to be up front in the phasing. Who is EAH, LLC? Commissioner Evans continued to explain that there has never been an obligation to develop with previous PUD approvals. He questioned what kind of guarantee the Town has if only a portion of the development is complete, and the developer leaves. What kind of burden would this produce on the Town? How do we ensure that this remains friendly to local ownership and businesses? Commissioner Roubos expressed concern with precedent, and to be careful to keep the character of Avon and how the Town envisions it. Commissioner Roubos felt that the buildings are ugly, and while we are not reviewing that now, the drawings have been presented and a response is warranted. Commissioner Prince explained that a timeline must be established, and citizen input is important. What can the applicants do to solicit feedback? Commissioner Green would like to have the uses clearly identified and distinguished in the plan set. Eric Heidemann responded to the Commissioners comments and offered a strategy to address the items of concern. Town Staff will meet with the applicants and develop new ways to disseminate the information, and public input strategies. He explained that the Stan + Bernstein model is forthcoming and that the opportunity for an urban renewal authority is present. A development agreement and agency comments will be presented as Staff receives them. Action: Commissioner Green motioned to table the application to the June 17"', 2008 Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roubos and all Commissioners were in favor. The application was tabled unanimously. IX. Other Business • July 15, 2008 DOLA training • Commissioner Lane questioned the approved monument signs at Boat Building • Commissioner Lane felt that development of outdoor spaces in PLIDs is extremely important, instead of just the numbers • Process Discussion with regard to PUD applications. X. Adjourn Meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:50pm APPROVED: Chris Green Vice Chairperson Phil Struve Secretary