Loading...
PZC Packet 061708 (3)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission A70 Meeting Agenda for June 17, 2008 N Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public c o o R A D o Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road WORK SESSION WITH TOWN COUNCIL (3:OOpm - 4:00pm) Description: Presentation by Jennifer Strehler, Director of Public Works and Transportation, concerning a conceptual design plan and potential PUD Amendment for the Swift Gulch Public Works facility to accommodate existing and future capacity needs. Open to the public. Discussion: The Work Session was called to order at 3:15pm. Planning and Zoning Commissioners Prince, Green, Roubos, and Struve were present for the Work Session. Town Council member Amy Phillips was also in attendance. Public Works director, Jenny Strehler, presented the project overview, architectural approach, and site considerations. Space planning for the property took place last year. The needs assessment for the property also took place. The timing is such that paperwork must be in for a grant by September of this year. Community Development has determined that a PUD amendment is required to facilitate the new site plan layout. Guy Britt, consultant for the Public Works Department, presented the proposed site design for the Swift Gulch property. The proposed bus circulation for the property requires approximately three (3) acres of land to function properly. The bus barn would be 3 buses deep and 10 buses wide. Architect character studies were presented, along with the site layout. SITE TOUR WITH TOWN COUNCIL (4:OOpm — 5:00pm) Description: Site Tour to the Avon Public Works Facility (500 Swift Gulch Road) to review the conceptual land use proposal. REGULAR WORK SESSION (S:OOpm — 5:30pm) Description: Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:37 pm. it. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Evans and Goulding. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Green recused himself from item VII.B, Beowulf Final Design Modifications. Commissioner Lane recused himself from item VII.A, Seasons Color Change and Exterior Improvements V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the June 3, 2008 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Green asked that staff to clarify the language related to the Snow Run Minor Project approval extension. Specifically, the timing of when Sye learned of the project approval. Commissioner Lane moved to approve the consent agenda, and Commissioner Roubos seconded the vote. The motion passed with a 4-0 vote; Commissioner Struve abstained due to his absence from the June 3, 2008 meeting. VI. Historic Preservation Committee Property Nomination — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Nottingham Power Plant Property Location: Tract A, Nottingham Station PUD / Hurd Lane Applicant: Historic Preservation Committee / Owner. Town of Avon Description: Kim Nottingham, on behalf of the Avon Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, submitted a recommendation for a structure to be considered for Historic Landmark designation — the Nottingham Power Plant. All Historic Landmarks must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, prior to moving to the Town Council. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report. Kim Nottingham stated that the feedback at the previous meeting was appreciated, and necessary to improve the process. Commissioner Green asked if staff had received any public comment, and staff stated that they had not. Commissioner Struve stated that he supports the nomination Action: Commissioner Roubos moved to approve Resolution 08-05, Recommending approval to the Avon Town Council. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with a 5-0 vote. VII. Minor Projects A. Seasons Color Change and Exterior Improvements Property Location: Lot 62/63, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 137 Benchmark Road Applicant: Dave Kaselak, Zehren & Associates / Owner. Matt Trasen, Avon Partners II, LLC Description: Dave Kaselak, of Zehren and Associates, is proposing exterior modifications to the Seasons building. The proposed modifications include: complete stucco repaint with three new colors, addition of standing seam metal roofing on select roof forms, new railing supports on the south side of the surface ramp parking area, addition of stone veneer in place of stucco, remodel of the porte cochere, and additional landscaping. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker presented the staff report. Dave Kaselak, Zehren Associates, highlighted the proposed modifications and stated that the largest change is the porte cochere. In addition to the building modifications, two large existing trees are planned to be removed. The trees will be replaced with a large 16' tall Colorado Spruce, and planter boxes along the southern parking area and ramp. Commissioner Struve asked if the stucco could not be scored what would the fall back method be. Dave responded that they would only paint the stucco if scoring would not be possible. Commissioner Struve also asked what the vertical blue panels were. Dave responded that they were a concrete material. The Commissioners asked if they could be addressed and the applicant responded that they could investigate, but were unsure if it is a paintable material. Commissioner Struve stated that he would prefer if no trees were moved but he understands this specific scenario. He would like to see a mature tree planted on the west side of the building if possible. He would also like the street lights modified so that they are compliant with the new codes. Commissioner Roubos stated that she was glad to see an upgrade in the works. She likes the rock element that is introduced. She asked if the porte cochere was to be higher. Dave responded that it was not. Commissioner Prince stated that all of the improvements are to the south side, and the north side is neglected. He would like to see a greater amount of improvements on the north side. The plantings on the south side of the retaining wall, underneath the port cochere, will not be viable in the winter and he asked what could be done there to enhance this elevation. Commissioner Green asked if two stair cases could be used. Dave said that it would be worth investigating that option. Green asked what the signage material is. Dave responded that a formal signage application would need to be applied for to answer that question. Commissioner Green asked what type of room would be available on the west side for the seconded displaced tree. Michael Smith, a residential HOA member, asked what type of metal standing seam roof was to be used on the parking entrances. The applicant responded to his questions. Mr. Smith also asked about potentially increasing the pitch of the roofs to assist in snow shedding. The applicant stated that the feasibility could be researched. The member also asked what type of scoring was to be done on the area above the parking garage. The applicant responded that it would only be a cosmetic score and wouldn't be a large joint. Karen Shandley, a home owner in the building, objects to the trees being removed. She states that there is no reason people will use the stairs and that the trees are a better suit there. She also stated that the residential home owners do not think these are the best uses of money. Commissioner Green stated that the financial implications are not of the prevue of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Prince asked Karen and Michael where the majority of the homeowners leave to access the ski mountain. They stated the most people leave by the parking garage entrance since that is where the ski lockers are located. Commissioner Roubos stated that she does not see many people use the existing sidewalk for access to the transportation center. Commissioner Struve asked if the stairs are covered by the porte cochere. The applicant responded affirmatively. Michael Smith stated that with a future parking structure, there is a concern with an impact on the Seasons building with the possibility of additional foot traffic through the middle of the building. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the item with the conditions in staffs report and with the condition that the building and site lighting be addressed. Commissioner Prince asked if a condition could be made to investigate and give staff approval for an alternate stairway plan under the Porte cochere. Commissioner Struve accepted the condition. Commissioner Prince asked about the scoring on the side walls above the parking garage entrances. Commissioner Green stated that it is in the record that it is the intent, but if it is not able to be done then there is already discussion and an understanding that it will just be painted. Commissioner Struve also added that the intent to add a Colorado Blue Spruce to the west side of the property is to be investigated. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion and it passed with a 4-0 vote. B. Beowulf Final Design Modifications Property Location: Lot 6, Western Sage PUD, Block 4, Wildridge / 5775 Wildridge Road East Applicant I Owner. Buz Reynolds Description: The owner and builder of this single-family residence (currently under construction in Wildridge) is proposing to change the approved retaining wall design, layout, and associated landscaping. Also included in the application is the addition of a single car garage. Discussion: Jared Barnes gave a brief presentation of staffs report and the applications for review. The new proposal clearly shows additional retaining walls, over and above the currently approved site/grading plan. There are three additional retaining walls on the east side of the structure. The new proposed garage is located where existing landscaping is shown on the plans. Staff is recommending a revised landscape plan in order to address the removed landscaping. Commissioner Struve questioned which parts of the application staff supports. Jared responded that staff is recommending denial of the site modifications, and approval of the building modifications. Buz Reynolds, applicant and owner, approached the podium and asked the Commission to act separately on different portions of the application. Commissioner Struve questioned the height of the proposed retaining walls. Sean Reynolds responded that the first wall would be 14', with dirt covering lower portions of the wall. Sean demonstrated the new wall layout locations on Sheet L.3 Buz explained that the driveway will now be snow melted, which will in turn allow for additional landscaping to be incorporated into the final product. Buz continued to explain the rational for the east side of the project and the requirement for additional walls. Commissioner Prince likes the Keystone walls and their appearance against the natural hillside. Commissioner Roubos is in agreement with the Keystone walls. Commissioner Roubos questioned the applicant on why the extent of the changes is being proposed now at this time. The applicant explained that during the construction process, required changes to the approved plans were evident in the field after observing final grades. Commissioner Struve expressed concern with the western retaining walls, and mentioned that the amount of landscaping is key. Commissioner Prince questioned how many additional trees the applicant would be acceptable to. Buz responded that at least 5 additional spruce and one dozen (12) aspen trees. The new property owner approached the podium to explain the desire to add a third car garage. She has four children and garaged parking is desired in the winter time. Commissioner Roubos did not feel that the additional garage appears integrated with the rest of the building, and looks like a separate structure. Snow storage location was questioned. Jared Barnes reiterated to the Commission that revised plans demonstrating at least 20% of the impervious surfaces shall be provided. Commissioner Struve felt that adding the proposed garage in its location will be a detriment to the approved design plans. Commissioner Roubos was fine with the retaining walls, material changes, but had reservations with the newly proposed garage. Commissioner Prince was in agreement with the garage, but was concerned with the retaining walls. Mr. Prince felt that the landscaping installed to address the 14' wall immediately east of this project was not acceptable. Further, he would like to see something additional to address landscape plan. Commissioner Struve had no problem with the proposed material modifications, and no problems with the garage. Mr. Struve was in agreement with the retaining walls. Commissioner Struve stated that he was not sure how else to erect the retaining walls. Intensive landscape plan. Commissioner Roubos still didn't think the garage fit with the rest of the building, but is fine with material changes. Action: Commissioner Roubos recommend conditional approval of the retaining walls with the condition that an 'extensive" revised landscape plan be provided showing how the walls will be addressed. The motion included a denial of the garage addition, and approval of material changes to the driveway and stone walls. There was no second to the motion, and the motion died. Commissioner Prince moved to approve the site modifications, subject to an improved landscape plan, specifically to hide the 14' retaining wall, with more than one tree, including aspens, and varying sized spruces. The motion included action to approve the material changes to the stone veneer siding and driveway. The motion was to approve garage modifications. Commissioner Lane motioned to deny the site retaining wall modifications, approve the building improvements and the condition that landscape plans are submitted for re -review. There was no second and the motion died. Commissioner Roubos motioned to approve the site changes and material changes with the condition that the applicant comes back with a revised landscape plan to better screen the retaining walls and proper snow removal be demonstrated. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Prince, and the motion passed with a 3-1 vote; Commissioner Lane objected. Commissioner Prince moved to approve the garage as proposed. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion and it passed with a 3-1 vote; Commissioner Roubos objected. VIII. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 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 uses in three new buildings to be located on the site. Discussion: Matt Gennett presented staffs report and the new approach to reviewing this redevelopment proposal. The allowed vs. proposed comparison of entitlements is to be reviewed at this meeting. Densities, bulk, height, and massing will be broken down. The agendas for the July 11t and July 15th Planning and Zoning Commission hearings were highlighted. Staff is recommending a tabling until the July 1St hearing. Pedro Campos, representing the owners of the property, presented the proposed gross floor area of the project. Approximately 67% of the GFA is above grade, and 33% below grade. Current Town Center allows 603,087 sq. ft. of GRA, and Avon 21 is proposing 24,587 sq. ft. under allowed zoning. (Applicant's PowerPoint presentation available upon request) The project density was broken down, and consists of: 118 lodging units, 237 residential units, and 12 local professional units. Total project density reaches 276 units. 94% of Avon 21 is at or below 80' building height allowed by current zoning. Approximately 6% of the buildings are above the Town Center zoning, and the development standards show a 130' allowance. The buildings in the plan set show are not more than 110'. The proposed site coverages were presented to the Commission: Pedro continued with his presentation by outlining the parking requirements. Parking requirements for Town Center Zoning, per Town Municipal Code, requires 681 parking spaces. Avon 21 requests 590 parking spaces. It was explained that the design team has applied the Confluence PUD parking ratios. Land Uses were presented: 318,000 sq. ft. residential, 89,000 accommodation, etc A lot by lot breakdown of dwelling units (dwelling units and accommodation units), commercial space, and common space was presented. Pedro reiterated the future meeting schedule, and the continuing process. Commissioner Green opened up the review for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lane questioned the parking disparity expressed in the buildout table. There were 681 spaces per Town requirements, and 590 proposed in the PUD. Brian Judge offered his interpretation of the parking study as it relates to occupancy rates. The parking plan contemplates private owner areas, and an 'open to the public' portion of the garages. Commissioner Green questioned the applicant on how dwelling units are defined. The total buildout includes studios, lbdrm, and 12 professional units. Green wanted to know what the other units consisted of: market residential condos, and fractional ownership possibilities. Brian Judge approached the podium to explain the unit type, branding, and partnerships evolving with this project. There is admittedly some flexibility built into the development plan, based on the possible ownership patterns envisioned. Commissioner Green opened the meeting to public comment. Kent Beidel, owner of Loaded Joes, offered his advice for future public input options, possibly involving his venue. He reiterated his concern that local businesses must be maintained in Town. How can we be assured local businesses are kept and successful with concern to rental prices. Commercial deed restricted businesses might be a possibility. Kent questioned the phasing approach, and when each building would get demolished and new ones built. He has not been purvey to the phasing plan. Kent commented on parking, and felt that 40 surface parking spaces are insufficient. More parking spaces than required by town code might be necessary. Kent had no further comments. Sandy Helms, Valley Girl Boutique owner, approached the podium. Parking issue is a concern to her business, in addition to accessibility. She felt that a first right of refusal to current tenants is a concern, and should be considered to address current business owners. The Commission questioned how much parking is demanded by her business. In the morning, 2 customers might be in the store, and a peak at 5-10 spaces with this development. The public comment portion of the meeting was closed with no further comments. Brian Judge approached the podium to recap the discussion and the approach to existing and future tenants of the buildings. He explained that numerous conversations have taken place with staff and council members about local store and tenants, and the ultimate care will be given to preferred tenants. Brian's team is committed to keeping businesses. Commissioner Lane commented on the direction of the Town towards pedestrian friendly environments, with underground parking. Lane questioned if the park was part of future agenda items. Commissioner Prince challenged the applicant with respect to the variances from Town Code development standards. Where is the public benefit to the Town to permit these discrepancies? Pedro responded that this is being molded in part by the bonding and economic impacts and future analysis will follow. Commissioner Roubos was in full agreement with Commissioner Prince's comments. Commissioner Struve had no further questions. Commissioner Green requested a floor plate by floor plate review of'the different land uses proposed. Pedro and Brian Judge presented each floor in the plan set in detail. The Professional unit numbers and locations were clarified. Commissioner Green questioned if the amount of office space will be reduced under current levels on the same parcels with this redevelopment. He pointed out the office space numbers, and they are reduced. Mr. Judge would like to challenge those numbers and come back with refined numbers if requested. Commissioner Green did not feel that would be necessary. A broad discussion continued concerning the future development patterns of the Town. The intent of the East Town Center District Plan was discussed. Matt Gennett explained that at the next hearing staff will attempt to break down the report to review this proposal -against all of the planning principles contained in the East Town Center District Plan. Action: Commissioner Roubos motioned to table this application to the July 16t, 2008 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. All Commissioners were in favor and the vote carried with a 5-0 vote. IX. Other Business • Snow Run is in order and compliance with the Planning Commission approval. • Lot 7, Western Sage will be reviewed at the next hearing. X. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:47pm. APPROVED: Chris Green Vice Chairperson Phil Struve Secretary