Loading...
PZC Minutes 12-15-2009 (2)Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission AVO Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2009 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public C o L o R A U o Avon Municipal Building / One Lake Street SITE VISIT (4:30pm) On-site review of the proposed location for the heat distribution building. Commissioners Goulding, Struve, Prince, Roubos, and Anderson were present. REGULAR WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:30pm) Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public REGULAR MEETING (5:30pm) I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. II. Roll Call Commissioners Goulding, Struve, Prince and Roubos were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Item VIII Heat Recovery Project was moved before Item VI Courtyard Villas due to the absence of the applicant. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the December 1, 2009 Meeting Minutes Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Prince amended the draft minutes and Commissioner Struve accepted the amendments. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. DESIGN REVIEW VI. Courtyard Villas Property Location: Lot 13, Block 3, Wildridge Subdivision / 4121 Little Point Applicant: Forenza Contracting /Owner Advanced Home Technologies Description: The applicant is requesting approval for revisions to stucco color for Lot 13 (Residences C &D). Discussion: Commissioner Struve suggested that a rendering be provided for the west and south elevation for both duplexes. Action: Commissioner Roubos moved to table the application to 1/5/10 due to the absence of the applicant. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. VII. GandorfTract B Sketch Design Review Property Location: Tract B, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision / 2101 Saddle Ridge Loop Applicant: Phil Matsen /Owner. GandorfTract B LLC Description: A sketch design review of two duplexes. The duplexes will be designed in modem mountain architecture. One duplex will measure approximately 31 feet tall and each unit will be approximately 2200 square feet, while the other duplex will be approximately 25 feet tall and 1700 square feet. t Discussion: Jared Barnes highlighted staffs report and the approved development standards through the PUD Amendment proposal. He stated the building sizes are in compliance with the PUD approval and the building height would be confirmed at Final Design review. Jared Barnes read the AMC section that limits the ability to park or maneuver parking spaces within 10' of the front setback. Either a Variance would be required or an alternate design. The similarity of the duplexes was discussed and the need to vary the roof forms and or massing of each of the two units for each building. Michael Pukas presented the difficulty with the property, specifically the requirement for three (3), 25' setbacks. He explained what could possibly be achieved with two separate driveway access points. Jared Barnes clarified that two points of access would likely not result in a hardship and the applicant would not likely be granted a variance. Additionally, the Design Guidelines require not more than one point of access be permitted for a lot with 4 units or less. Commissioner Struve stated he does not see a variance being granted in this situation and stated the driveway needs to be addressed. Additionally, architecture needs to be worked out with more differentiation between each unit and each building. He commented that complimentary colors need to be proposed for each building, but the applicant has a good start. Commissioner Roubos agreed that the Variance would not happen. She also agreed with staff on the mirror image of the two units. The roof form feels more compatible with the older architecture in the neighborhood and may be outdated. Action: Since this was a Sketch review no formal action was taken. VIII. Heat Recovery Project Property Location: Tract N and Tract H, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Applicant. Mark Donaldson, Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Owners: Eagle River Water and Sanitation Dist, Town of Avon Description: The applicant is requesting approval for the design of two separate accessory structures, each necessitated by the heat recovery project, which is slated for construction in 2010. This is a revised proposal to respond to comments received at the December 1, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Discussion of the Recreation Center Addition: Justin Hildreth presented the project and its background. Chris Jurgens presented the placement of the recreation center distribution building and the justification for its location on the ground. He also discussed the need to limit the disruptions to the existing parking lot. The size of the building is intended to incorporate the initially demanded equipment and the future equipment for snowmelt system. He did comment that the design of the building is consistent with the neighboring recreation center building. The Commission discussed the Recreation Center building first and made a motion on this proposal prior to discussing the Water and Sanitation Building. Commissioner Roubos questioned if this truly was the best location for the building and asked if there was a way to fit the proposed building on the south side of the building. Justin Hildreth responded that there are existing utilities in that location and the roadway would need to be moved. Commissioner Roubos again questioned if there was a way to avoid using the adjacent building for a design comparison given the fact that the existing building is substandard. Sally Vechio questioned what could be done to increase the Commission's comfort level with this project, given that the building location is set by many other factors. Commissioner Goulding felt that additional substantial landscaping would benefit the final appearance of this project. Commissioner Struve questioned the parking issue. Justin Hildreth responded that the 62 parking spaces on the west side of the Recreation Center will be closed next summer which will create a parking shortfall that can only be alleviated by the existing Recreation Center Parking lot. Commissioner Goulding questioned if additional landscaping could be placed on the roof top of the addition. Justin Hildreth responded that he would have to have a discussion with his design team and that a redesign of the roof would be necessary. Commissioner Prince stated that a few lost parking spaces is worth while to increase the screening and negative aesthetic impacts of the proposed building. Commissioner Goulding asked if the entrance to the parking area off of Benchmark is necessary. If not, the building could be placed perpendicular which would result in a loss of parking spaces, but an increase in landscaping. Justin Hildreth outlined the ramifications of modifications to the building placement. He also overviewed the future steps and timeline for the entire project, including Main Street. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the proposed Recreation Center Addition on Tract G with the following conditions to be addressed prior to final design approval: Condition #1: Revise the Landscaping Plan to review additional landscape screening for recreation center and recreation center addition with a minimum three foot landscaping strip; and Condition #2: Add appropriate windows that can be staff approved. And with the following findings: Finding #1: The design is acceptable due to the purpose of the building for sustainability and to the town, while respecting the architectural limitations of the recreation center. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion and it passed 3-1. Discussion of the Water and Sanitation Site Building: Chris Jurgens discussed the proposed design. Commissioners questioned the exact location. Chris Jurgens went through the changes that were requested by the commission at their last review and what was actually approved by the design team and the Water and Sanitation District. Commissioner Goulding questioned the light fixtures and their potential to be on during times when the building is not in use. Justin Hildreth responded that the fixtures will be on a timer and will only be on when necessary maintenance occurs. Commissioner Roubos questioned the size of the proposed building in relation to the pump house. Staff responded that they were comparable in size with the pump house being more square and the proposed building being more rectangular. Commissioner Prince questioned the future use of the Municipal Building and its relationship to the proposed building. Action: Commissioner Roubos moved to approve the proposed building on Tract H with findings listed in staffs report. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion and it passed 3-1. IX. Timeshare East Property Location: Lot 1, Riverfront Subdivision / 42 Riverfront Lane Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner. Starwood Vacation Ownership Description: Final Design review for the 'Timeshare East' property. The design includes two buildings separated at grade: Building East (E), and Building Riverside (R). There are 74 units proposed in the two buildings. The East building is the taller of the two building and includes 58 2 -bedroom units, each with the ability to have a lock -off unit. The Riverside building is positioned between the East building and the Riverfront recreation path. This building contains the remaining 16 2 -bedroom units, also with the ability to have lock -offs. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker outlined the history of the proposal and the current application. He discussed the comments made at the last Final Design approval. Joe Ganwitz, Starwood, reviewed the comments and stated his support for the proposed changes. Alexander Shekek discussed all of the comments from the Commission. He discussed each modification from the previous proposal. Commissioner Struve questioned the LEED certification and how it would meet the Westin's certification. Joe Ganwitz responded that it would meet or exceed the Westin's certification. Commisisoner Struve asked if the color schemes were the same for Timeshare East and West. The applicant responded affirmatively. Commissioner Prince questioned if a 20 foot by 10 foot fire sculpture is LEED registered. Commissioner Prince questioned if the Design Guidelines discussed the sculpture. Staff responded that it didn't exclude the proposed sculpture. Commissioner Prince questioned its application with relation to the dark sky ordinance. Sally Vecchio responded that there was no application. Commissioner Struve asked if there was an entrance ramp into this building. Joe Ganwitz responded that the entrance to the structure will be through the Westin. Commissioner Goulding asked if there was any further design to the parking structure for TSE when compared to the Westin. Alexander Shekek stated that a parking consultant was hired and they designed the parking levels with adequate drive lanes and parking spaces. Commissioner Prince questioned the staff comment regarding the parking drop off. Commissioner Roubos stated that the proposal doesn't feel like enough progress was made. She stated that the Westin and TSW are better designs, but this will be the first building people will see and needs a higher level of design. She stated that the proposal looks like an apartment complex when viewed in comparison to the Westin. She stated that there appears to be no sense of entry for the Riverfront project. Commissioner Struve stated that the wings on the Westin are designed with different elements. This proposal does not achieve that design characteristic. Commissioner Struve was in favor of the fire pit and drop off area. He would like this proposal to take design keys off of the Westin. He commented that not a single person from Eagle County is on the design team. He wanted Sheet L2.00, Riverside Building, to be revised to include more trees on the Northeast side of the building. He stated that the proposed light fixtures lack architectural interest. He also stated that the Bike path should be temporarily moved to the west side of Timeshare West. He also stated that the stone was used in a great manner on TSW, and he would like to see that on TSE. Commissioner Prince stated that the design needs more work in order to make a grand entrance. He would like to see better landscaping in front of each building. He thought the design was going in the right direction. He felt a tier or step back in the building would be a grand step in the right direction. Commissioner Goulding stated that he would agree with the previous comments. The Landscape plan needs more variation in number and size of plantings. He would like the plan to use more mature trees and better balance for all sizes. He commented on the lack of a fence detail for the pool area. He wanted a consistent stone application that helps create an anchor. He clarified that the stone application doesn't need to match on both buildings, but should be specific to each individual building. He discussed the construction management issues brought up by staff. Commissioner Goulding stated TSE has less vertical interest than TSW Commissioner Roubos stated that the south elevation of TSE should have more vertical interest. She highlighted the Westin's interest on side elevations and compared it to the TSE. Chuck Madison, East West Partners, commented on the specific comments that were made at this evening's meeting. He discussed the Master Architect and the internal DRB processes that the applicant has already been through. Commissioner Prince suggested that the applicant revise the Landscape Plan to exclude all fruit producing plantings. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to table the application to 1/19/10 with a work session to be held on 1/5/09. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. X. Other Business • Longsun Lane PUD Wildstar Residences XI. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:10. Approved W. Todd Gi Chairpersoi Phil Struve Secretary