Loading...
PZC MInutes 060695RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES June 6, 1995 The regular meeting of the Town of Avon Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Jack Hunn at 7:30 PM, June 6, 1995 in the Council Chambers, Avon Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. Members absent were Henry Vest and Buz Reynolds. Members Present: Jack Hunn, Beth Stanley, Rhoda Schneiderman, Sue Railton, Bill Sargis Staff Present: Mike Matzko, Director of Community Development, Sheila Kremski, Recording Secretary CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (6:00om worksession) Lot 11, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Fourplex Lot 31, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Duplex Lot 42, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision CONFLICTS OF INTEREST CONSENT AGENDA The following items were scheduled on the Amended Consent Agenda: 1. Tract G, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Rec. Center Sign 2, Lot 44, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Baca, Color Change. 3. Lot 28, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Orcutt, Landscape 4. Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Sortland, 4 Units. 5. Approval of the June 6, 1995 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Consent Agenda (Con.'t) Mike Matzko described the Consent Agenda. The Commission removed Lot 28, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Orcutt, Landscape and Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Sortland, 4 Units from the Consent Agenda to better discuss each project. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve the consent agenda. Seconded by Sue Railton and the motion unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS V Lot 16 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Special Review Use Home Occupation Mike Matzko stated that the applicant is proposing a home office in support of a painting business. The premises are to be used just as an office, by the residents of the house. Staff approves if within the parameter set forth by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant Tom Mallon was present. He explained that all the office will consist of is a phone. No paint will be stored, maybe a little bit of paint thinner per each job. They do own ladders but they will be stored in the garage. No signs associated with the business. Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing. Gary Grey, a home owner at Unit #1, was present to comment. His concern was paint storage. The storage of paint thinner it might change his insurance rate due to its flammability. No property changes, no remolding of exterior, no sign, advertisement without a physical address, no traffic -whether clients or employees. Is this approved by the owner of the unit and approval from the home owners association, will there be a six month condition so if there is a question or problem it can be brought back, if approved can there be a stipulation that the use does not run with the lease. Shawn Roodey, president of the home owners association, was also present to comment. She did not know about the home occupation until some calls were made. In her opinion paint and paint thinner storage are the main concern. There is not a problem with the home office use. Tom Mallon commented on the home owners concerns. Tom did not know that there was a home owners association. Storage of paint will not happen at the unit. Storage of paint thinner will happen in nominal amounts. No traffic. All employees of company are Tom's roommates. Advertisements will only have residents phone number and address will be a Post Office Box. No firewood sales. Has verbal consent from landlord is waiting for a formal signature. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Lot 16 Block 1 Wildridge Subdivision Special Review Use Home Occupation (Con 't) Chairperson Hunn noted that the homeowners association would be more comfortable if the applicant would be willing to store zero paint and zero paint thinner. Tom replied they could work with this reauest Chairperson Hunn also commented on the usual process for a home occupation is to put a trial period so everyone involved can review performance. Tom replied he could work with this request also. Chairperson Hunn suggested that procedurally the town requires evidence of condo association approval prior to any action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairperson Hunn asked the homeowner present if they felt comfortable if some action were taken on the home occupation given specific conditions. Gary Grey and Shawn Roodey did not have a problem with the conditions but needed to discuss and approve at home owners association meeting. Chairperson Hunn closed the public hearing. Bill Sargis moved to approve Lot 16, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Special Review Use, Public Hearing, Home Occupation subject to the following conditions: CONDITIONS: 1. the approval is based on the owners approval of the particular unit; 2. approval of the condominium association; 3. a six month trial period; 4. no storage of paint or paint thinner on property; 5. any ladders be stored inside garage; 6. no employees(other than residents) no clients, or representatives showing up at office; 7. the permit is not transferable; 8. staff approval of the above. Seconded by Rhoda Schneiderman. Motion unanimously carried Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 5, 1995 Swift Gulch, P.U.D. Amendment Mountain Star Limited Liability Company AND Swift Gulch_ P.U.D. Amendment_ Town of Avon Mike Matzko stated that this is a transfer of property from a portion of the Mountain Star PU'D open space to the Swift Gulch PUD, owned by the Town and approved for use as a municipal shop facility. The addition of this parcel allows for more effective use of the site, particularly with the potential for a shared site with Vail Associates(BC). No change of use per se is contemplated. This amendment deals exclusively with the change in boundary and area. Staff recommends approval. Chairperson Hunn suggested dealing with both public hearings on the amendments since they are both intertwined and make two different motions for approval. Rick Pylman, Jamar & Associates representing Mountain Star, was present for any questions on the amendments. Mountain Star purchased that lower property a couple of years ago, mostly zoned open space. The particular tract being subdivided is a 255 acre open space piece. The very bottom of the land butts up against Swift Gulch which the Town of Avon purchased to put the public works site at. The very top of Swift Gulch has an acre or two of workable ground that is a part of the Mountain Star PUD and the Town of Avon approached Mountain Star if they would be willing to part with that. They are simply transferring that from the Mountain Star PUD to the Swift Gulch PUD so the Town has use of that workable space. They have no access to it within Mountain Star They are supportive of the whole application. Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing ori either of the two amendments proposed. No comment. Chairperson Hunn closed the public hearing. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned if this would cost the town anything Rick Pylman thought not. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Swift Gulch, P.U.D. Amendment_. 'Mountain Star Limited Liability Company, Public Hearing Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion unanimously carried. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve Swift Gulch, P U.D. Amendment, Town of Avon, boundary change. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion unanimously carried. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 3 June 6, 1995 Lot 31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Variance, Bryant, Public Hearing Mike Matzko stated this is a request for a parking lot setback variance. Normally., all paving must terminate 10 feet from the right-of-way line (the property line). The applicant is requesting a variance that varies from a fraction of a foot to a maximum 4.32 ft. Without this variance, he will not be able to construct adequate parking and maneuvering area to support the proposed uses. Staff recommends granting the parking lot setback variance as requested. John Perkins was present on behalf of the applicant, Mr. & Mrs. Doug Bryant. John did work with that lot to try to honor the 10 ft. paving setback and they found they needed to push on the front for a couple of reasons. The lot is shallower than most IC Zone District lots and coupled with the fact that this first floor of the building is not large enough at this time for the Bryant's retail operation. The rear area is proposed for the outdoor kennel runs. Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing. No comment. Public hearing closed. Chairperson Hunn commented that the applicant was requesting relief to facilitate a parking lot that is already a diagonal format. So there is a direction flow and it appears that someone could enter the parking lot on the western entrance and try to turn right against traffic. Will there be any signage to control that. John replied yes. The parking lot that is on the western end does come straight in an6 parks 90% to the west property line. The lot in front is diagonal and has been pinched down as tight as possible. In phase II of the building that lot will not have the option of coming in and going back to the east. Chairperson Hunn also question the landscaped area that is lost due to the variance. Will the ditch between the two driveways entrances be put in culvert in order to reclaim that area as part of the landscape solution. John has not given it any consideration but he does not see a problem with that. John would need to consult the applicant since the cost is very important to the project. They have cut the grade of the driveway almost down to the grade of the road so there is no need for retainage in that area. The curb varies from about 4 to 4 1/2 feet to about 2 feet at the narrowest point at the driveway. Snow storage solution will probably all be to the west. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 5 June 6, 1995 Lot 31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision. Variance_ Bryant (Con.'t' Sue Railton questioned if the landscaping will not go on your property but on the [ig it -cat= way John replied that some will be over the property line. Sue Railton asked if the town will allow this to go on the right-of-way. John thought that Norm Wood has allowed this in the past. Mike Matzko said it depends on the landscaping and it is a case by case basis. Rhoda Schneiderman asked staff if there were arty plans to widen Nottinuhair, Road Mike Matzko stated that they have none. Sue Railton would like to see the amount of landscaping that the applicant has committed to on the drawings. She feels that is the downfall about streets in the town that people are not putting in good landscaping along the streets in front of these commercial buildings Rhoda Schneiderman appreciated John's comment about the interior of the project with the open, easy pedestrian feel. However, the vast majority of people area are dri�ing by and not walking they will not appreciate the interior amenities. John still feels he has left ample room to get as much landscaping as the board desires. Beth Stanley commented that she still did not see where the snow storage will be. John explained that in some years snow may need to hauled off the site. Chairperson Hunn questioned staff if they were aware of a percentage of snow storage as a percent of paved area that the town is looking for. Mike Matzko's responded that 15°x6 of paved area should be available for snow storage. It is an issue on that site with that use and size that drives the parking. It does get good solar exposure. The commission has the ability to make a condition of the approval to have the applicant remove the extra snow if needed. Andy Bober was also present on behalf of the applicant to comment. Part of the snow storage issue is that you need to go back to the parking requirements for this facility. There is nothing in the zoning ordinance for kennels but they set a ratio of 3 per thousand. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Lot 31, Block 1. Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Variance. B ant Con.'t; Andy feels they have more parking than is required and put the snow storage in the area which will be used less. Andy does not feel that parking ratio is fair to this project but they developed it with staff. Mike Matzko commented that no doubt about it, the current use is probably not going to impact that much. Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to approve Lot 31 _ Block i, Benchmark at Beaver :reek Subdivision, Variance, Bryant, Pubiic Hearing with the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS: u A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity. B. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons 1 The strict or literal interpretation, and enforcement of the regulation_ would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; 2. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity; 3. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the vicinity. CONDITIONS: 1. Subject to the landscape plan on the south edge of the building having all submitted trees and bushes intact but that they all be placed within the boundaries of the applicants lot; 2. Staff recommendations. Seconded by Sue Railton. Motion carries unanimously. Lot 31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Special Review Use, Bryant, Public Hearing Mike Matzko stated the applicant wants special uses for a kennel, veterinary hospita, r retail pet store, other retail space, office and four units of residential. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Lot 31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Special Review. Use, (Con.'t', John Perkins was present on behalf of the applicant. They went through the chap;-ing of the ordinance with the Council. The Council ultimately decided that they were not interested in getting into rental restrictions to those four units. The fact that they will be rental units and the town does not have any rental restrictions at this point. The Council chose to change that ordinance and not require any restriction on those units. Chairperson Hunn commented that the ordinance used to allow 1 residential unit per site and now the ordinance has been changed to allow 4 units, with special review. Will not restrict on how they would be rented. Mike Matzko stated that this was not entirely accurate. The provision in conjunction with the business has remained and you could look at that as a restriction but the intent of this is for employees. The specific issue that John is referring to is the subdivision. Chairperson Hunn commented the desire to eventually subdivide and sell these separately and the ordinance did not provide for that previously. Does it now provide for that. Mike Matzko stated that it does allow for that and does not prevent it. John stated it does not prevent that but it is still the intention that even if they are subdivided they always remain in conjunction with the business. Chairperson Hunn is concern about opening this up to the this extent but since it is a town wide ordinance it apparently applies to your project. Chairperson Hunn opened the public hearing. No comment. Public Hearing closed. John Perkins stated that he thought the Council felt that the location would always insure people living above these units would have something to do with the businesses below. Sue Railton motioned to approve Lot 31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Special Review Use, Bryant, Public Hearing. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion unanimously carries. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 FINAL DESIGN REVIEW Lot 31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review Mike Matzko stated this project is a three-story building to house a veterinary hospital, associated retail, boarding facilities and 4 units of employee housing, located on the north side of Nottingham Road, about a block east of the intersection with Metcalf Road. This project was reviewed by the Commission in February and March, and received approval (by special review) for the uses described in this application, with the exception of two residential units instead of the four units now proposed. (The zoning ordinance has been revised to allow four residential units accessory to the business, rather than he original two). The building has also been modified somewhat, particularly the window openings on the south elevation, and the building has been extended approximately 20 feet on the west end. Parking and snow storage meet the minimum allowed by the zoning code. John Perkins was present representing the applicant, Mr. & Mrs. Bryant. John explained that they plan on building basically a masonry building, all exterior walls, with soils testing to make sure they are on the right tract. It is a split face masonry product and it will be exposed and painted. An awning on the lower retail windows with the name of the business on those awnings and would like to bring over there current signage that is on the Walmart center building and reuse this signage. The building will be capped off with 10 to 12 inch detail of hunter green. Rhoda Schneiderman and Bill Sargis asked the applicant to watch the seams on the capping of the building. Chairperson Hunn asked the applicant to comment on the site lighting strategy. Andy Bober explained the plan was to use three pole lights, about a 15 ft. high pole to keep the height down. Probably a metal halide light. Typical hat box light fixtures that you have seen along that whole commercial strip in the area. Chairperson Hunn suggested angling the fixtures a little bit toward the facility and away from the road so that as you are traveling the road you cannot get the glare. Also you may consider the style and color of lighting on the adjacent property, Beck Building, to coordinate. Rhoda Schneiderman thinks the building is handsome and complemented the color scheme. Rhoda asked Dr. Bryant if there was a name for the building. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 199 Lot 31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, FDR, Bryant (Con.'t� Dr. Bryant explained that it was the "Pet Center" due to the previous sign code only allowing for "Pet Center" rather than "Avon Pet Center." But business is done under "Avon Pet Center." I () Rhoda Schneiderman feels that a personal name rather than a generic name is much :.Wore friendly and informative. Sue Railton agreed. Chairperson Hunn had no problem with the signage. The awnings in the rendering do not show up in the elevations, are the awnings intended. John replied yes. Chairperson Hunn asked if the landscape pian was an irrigated system. The applicant explained that part of the problem with the site was the soils which does not allow much landscaping. The soils report highly recommends not planting around specific areas. Chairperson Hunn asked the applicant that with the shallowness of the ditch and with permission from the town you can achieve the landscape plan as proposed. If this is not the case could you come back to Planning and Zoning Commission and give an update. John replied yes. Bill Sargis motioned to approve Lot 31, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review. Seconded by Sue Railton. Motion unanimously carries. Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Modification This is a house nearing completion. The project was originally approved with a rock - veneer on the lower (approximately 4 feet) portions of the house, as well as some garden walls. The applicant now wants to eliminate those features. Michael Schneider was present as the applicant. On the columns that are holding up the deck they were originally going to have river rock on those columns and partially around the courtyard at the entryway. Since the house has been built and designed he felt the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 11 June 6, 1995 Lot 13, Block 4_ Wildridge Subdivision, ModificationCon.'0 rock did not lend itself to that type of style. The other change would be in the landscape plan. Michael eliminated some rock walls and put in some smaller rock retaining walls with wildflowers in between them. Still will have 30 some aspens, 8 feet tall and 10 eight foot Douglas Spruce, 25 odd flowering bushes. Therefore he has not cut back on any trees or shrubs. The cut back on some of the walls is due to the grading that was done there and lends itself better to this type of design. Chairperson Hunn commented that a site visit was done and that a video tape of thaE visx'� was done so others could see the site. The house is large and, without the rig-er rock; it is a one material exterior finish system. Chairperson Hunn is reluctant to see it deleted since the house is so large and one color, it is really losing something. Michael feels that when the landscaping is done and paving is in that will no longer happen. Especially with the size trees and bushes. Chairperson Hunn asked if the color of the stucco was an integrai color or paint applied. Michael explained it was paint applied. Chairperson Hunn suggested giving consideration to changing the color of those areas chat were going to receive river rock to a complementary stucco color to add the interest back. Michael Schneider had discussed it with his wife and she did not like the idea. He felt it would look out of place. He wants to keep from making those columns any heavier and thicker than they are. It is not the cost. Chairperson Hunn asked what the applicant planned to do to finish the underside of the deck. ;Michael replied it would be all pained the same color as the rest of the house inciudinu, the micro -lam beam. Sue Railton was more concerned with how the soil in front of those walls and pillars were since it is washing away. Michael explained the dry stack walls will be sporadically placed. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the landscape plan in the packet was the revised pian. Michael replied yes. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 12 June 6, 1995 Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Modification (Con.'t) Rhoda Schneiderman noted that the numbers mentioned are not reflected in the landscape plan. Michael explained it should be in there. Rhoda Schneiderman does agree that the rock on the columns turned out to be bigger than anticipated. But an all white home looks very massive. Unless you plan on putting extremely mature landscape it will look massive. You can retain the right hand side short wall in stone and find some place else horizontal on the building to add some stone and balance it out. Rhoda was just not comfortable with it. Bill Sargis and Beth Stanley agreed that the stone columns make the building too massive. Chairperson Hunn wanted to clarify that the applicant is proposing to remov: some boulder retaining walls on the site and grade the site instead. Does the grading exceed 2:1 slope. Michael replied yes they are proposing grading instead but the grading does not exceed a 2:1 slope. Bill Sargis motioned to approve Lot 13, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Modifications Seconded by Sue Railton. Motion carries. Rhoda Schneiderman and Jack Hunn nay Lot 28, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Orcutt, Landscape This item was removed from the consent agenda for further discussion. This is a final submittal of a landscape plan for a duplex (actually a main unit with a lock - off apartment). The proposed driveway extension to the north of the house serves as parking and access for the lock -off unit, which has its main entry on the east side, opposite the street. The combination of berming and plantings appear well-balanced with the house and the site. The applicant is also adding a culvert under the driveway Rhoda Schneiderman was concerned about the berm. Rhoda asked staff if that berm was to the height or length originally on the plans. Mike stated there was not one there at all. It is being submitted as a modification. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 June 6, 1995 Lot 28, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Landscape, Orcutt (Con.'t) Rhoda Schneiderman explained it was too big of a modification for the consent agenda Chairperson Hunn explained that this was six piles of very rocky soil. Mr. Orcutt proposed that grading modification last winter. The understanding was that you imported the dirt for use on the other side of the house and that the finished grade has been achieved under the area of dirt storage. Are you proposing to raise the grade along the southern property line. John Orcutt was the applicant present. He is proposing to match similar berms other people on the street have already built, so he will have two matching berms on either side of driveway. About 2 feet high. Chairperson Hunn was concerned with a feature of the driveway extending further east on the lot and the potential impact on the neighbor. Has the applicant spoken to the neighbors about this change. Mr. Orcutt response was that he had not. Chairperson Hunn questioned is there the proposal to gTrade off the property or is the applicant showing existing topography. Mr. Orcutt explained his grading would be contained on his site. Rhoda Schneiderman explained that some of the landscaping needed to be changed to meet the town standards. Sue Railton asked the reason for the black top going down the northern side of the property. John Orcutt explained the entrance to the caretaker unit. Sue Railton felt it looked like to much asphalt along side of the house. Mike Matzko stated that looking around adjacent properties there are examples of berms and large areas of asphalt. Seeing this in the context is difficult, it may look like a lot of asphalt. In reality the houses directly across the street are not much different. Given the lock -off unit and the front door it seemed they needed some room for parking there. Rhoda Schneiderman would like staff to approve the revised legend on the landscape plan to meet town minimums and actual quantities be inserted. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Lot 28, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Landscape, Orcutt ('Con.'t) Mike Matzko replied he would take care of that. Bill Sargis motioned to approve Lot 28, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Oructt, Landscape with the provision that staff approve submitted landscape plans listing quantities to town minimum standards. Seconded by Sue Railton. Motion carries. Jack Hunn nay. Lot 89. Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Sortland. 4 Units This item was also removed from the consent agenda. 14 Mike Matzko stated this is a resubmit of a project that received final approval over 2 years ago. Just prior to receiving a building permit, the applicant withdrew his application. The design approval has now expired. The plan before you is virtually the same as the original submittal. The applicant, however, wants to eliminate the chimneys on the outside walls of the structures. Chairperson Hunn understood that technically the approval has expired. Chairperson Hunn commented that one thing that has occurred since Phase I was were built is that some green trim elements that appeared about a year or two after they were built. Ken Sortland was present as the applicant. He agreed and explained that the people that bought the units repainted the trim green on the building. Chairperson Hunn pointed out that this was never approved by the town and asked the applicant what his intentions were on the phase 11, does the applicant plan to match the green trim. Ken replied no. He does not want to make them all look exactly the same and is looking at making each building with a different color trim. The stucco will remain the same Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the landscape plan is showing what is existing or is it just the plan that was originally submitted. Ken replied it was the original landscape plan and in 1991 the landscape plan was redone. The latest landscape plan was approved with conditions and was included with the sta,7 reports for review. Rhoda Schneiderman wanted to know what was put in, not what is on the plan. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995, Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridae Subdivision, Sortland, 4 Units (Con.'t Ken replied he put in more landscape than what was called for. The town came and checked every, tree, etc. Chairperson Hunn was more concerned with the green color on the lattice and the decks than with the facia. Ken replied that it was the owners who changed the trim and not him. 15 Chairperson Hunn inquired if the units were a part of any condominium association if Ken has control over this association. Ken replied no. The only thing on the property is the easement given for the driveway for the units to exit. It is more like a duplex. Ken would like to use the masonite roofing product that is existing on the present units. Rhoda Schneiderman felt it held up as far as the integrity of the product goes but if you look at it from above it is faded from the sun. Sue Railton wanted to see the gas and electric meters be painted to match the building. Rhoda Schneiderman asked staff if the Commission had to put the painting of meters m the motion or if it was an automatic condition. Mike Matzko replied that the Commission needs to come up with those specifics and they would be included in the packet. Chairperson Hunn commented that the issue of the unapproved colored trim was with the owners of the two current units. Maybe the town would like to make an issue of that. Sue Railton questioned the area around the garage side of the buildings. The drawings show a concrete retaining wall and stairs going up onto a deck platform. Was that buiit on the other buildings. Ken replied that it was not a concrete retaining wall, it is a landscape berm with ties. Sue Railton pointed out that this retaining wall does not match the plans that the applicant has described. He should make that distinction in the plans to make it accurate. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision Sortland 4 units (Con.'t) Sue Railton motioned to approve Lot 89, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Approval that the plans be revised to reflect what was built on the first duplex and what will be built on the next two duplexes. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion unanimously carries. 16 Ken had an question about waiving the fees for this presentation to the Design and Review Board. The Commission would like to leave it up to staff. Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Review Mey_erstem Mike Matzko stated this is the final design for the Meyerstein residence, which was presented for conceptual review last meeting. The applicant has made modifications. John Heinly was present on behalf of the applicant. John felt that they have taken all the recommendations from the conceptual review. The color scheme would be with neutral color with beige's/yellow. The metal roof would enhance the design and to use an asphalt type shingle would change the design. John has brought a letter from the individuals who coat this metal roof because of reflectivity. Please refer to letter. John felt the advantage this house has is that on the way he designed the house both of the roofs slope to the south and to the north, there is no east west at all. On a high sun day of June 21 at noon there cannot be any reflectivity onto the north, the only place it could possibly reflect would be to the south of which there are people way down below. The applicant feels the Commission was looking at the metal in an incandescent lighting and not actual day light. The weight of the roof is a 24 gauge. Rhoda Schneiderman is not personally against metal roofs however the Town has guidelines and where they are appropriated in the subdivision, the only metal roofs approved so far have been minimal amounts on the roof, never the whole roofing system as well as normally in a place that has very little looking down on it. This is on the whole roof. The applicant feels that the roof is broken up enough not making it a blocking mass structure at the street. It is also recessed about 6 to 7 feet below street level. Rhoda Schneiderman felt that the applicant could use other roof materials like concrete tile or other materials other than metal. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 1 June 6, 1995 Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, FDR, Meyerstein Con.'t) Chairperson Hunn commented that at the last review of this project the Commission expressed some concerns and you, the applicant, have indicated those were taken into consideration. Chairperson Hunn sees the same concerns in the current plans. From a site planning standpoint a concern about the maneuvering space available outside the garage. If someone was trying to back and turn a car in this space and avoid having to back all the way to the street, you have provided 26 feet of paved surface and that is before any snow storage encroaches into that space. The applicant has added 5 more feet. Chairperson Hunn feels it is under designed for maneuvering in the winter. He was concerned about the grading of the driveway platform, it appears to be a 1:1 slope that exceeds the Town maximum. Also this is a hazardous condition. If someone comes down the driveway and does not stop for some reason there is nothing preventing them from going over that bank. The applicant felt that some sort of curb could be put there or raised curb so it would not be a hazard. Maybe a raised 6 inch curb 3 to 4 feet in front of that drop would stop Chairperson Hunn commented that would help and if the applicant would redesign the grading to meet the town regulations there would be some retaining features in this area. Maybe one of those features could be up close to the level of the driveway so there could be some landscaping to buffer the image of that platform. Also concern over the metal roof and the Commission has to review the criteria under which the Commission would consider a metal roof. The Commission talked about a concern for the shape at the entrance and some different alternatives for the shape on the back side of the building. John pointed out the south elevations on the new drawings, There are some revisions for that area. Chairperson Hunn noted at the last review of the project the owner of the home was present. John replied that the owner was also present at this present meeting. The owner is Roger Meyerstien. Chairperson Hunn had the impression at the last meeting that Mrs. Meyerstien agreed that the entry image would be revised from the form seen at the last meeting but it is the same for that is presented this evening. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Lot 85 Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision. FDR Meyerstein Con.'t) John stated that some changes are not reflected in the drawings in the Commissions packets. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned if the front door was resessed in any way. John replied no. is Chairperson Hunn commented that the version in the Commissions packets are identical to the version the applicant has. John replied that he brought Mike Matzko some revisions earlier that day that should not have those on them. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the windows were the only changes as far as the entry goes. John replied that the recommended windows were added. Also added 12 inch block side lights on each side of the front door and a small keystone to accent the front door. The front door is at the point where it is level with no overhang. Rhoda Schneiderman feels that there is not much attention called to the front door. The form is unusual and yet the front door disappears which does not look like a front entry. John remarked the Meyerstems were thinking about putting a copper type door than what is drawn. Maybe it can be recessed a couple of feet and get a nice shadow. Sue Railton sees a playful form above it but then have an ordinary looking shape for a door in it and looks almost like a stage set. Give it some pizzazz. John did not want to go overboard. Sue Railton commented that at last meeting it was discussed that a lot of California influence was in the drawings. It could be more playful. Chairperson Hunn questioned the garage door finish. John replied that it would be a tongue and grove type door. Chairperson Hunn noted that at the last meeting the landscaping was discussed to address the northside or the entry side of the home with virtually no landscaping on the sides or Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 19 June 6, 1995 Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, FDR, Meyerstein(Con.'t) southern backside of the home. The Commission addressed the concern they would prefer a landscape plan that would address all four sides of the home. John asked the Commission if they felt with the quantities shown if he used the same quantities or less because it was very difficult. Roger Meyerstien, owner, stated 19 years ago he bought a condominium here next to the lake, Beaver Bench, and fell in love with the area but does not live here. He came here before Avon was incorporated and he was the first who paid his home here with the people who built it and because of that single payment they did not go bankrupt. There was only one building up. Roger bought a piece of land 14 years ago and he has never sold it and he want to build. His wife lives here and he lives presently in Los Angles County. In one year from now he will be able to come one week a month and Roger wants to live up there so this will be his home. Roger wants the minimum landscaping now that will be acceptable because four years from now when he lives there full time he will be able to do more. Basically whatever the Commission needs to approve the home he will do but later it will be more. Rhoda Schneiderman commented the landscape plan has to reflect town minimums which would be 6 foot for spruce and 2 inch caliper for aspens minimum. Rhoda feels tree wise it is OK but you could spread them around a little more and more variety in bushes. Chairperson Hunn felt very strong about the metal roof and he appreciates the sample. But the type of topography in Wildridge someone is always looking down on the roofs. The sample is probably one of the lowest glare roofing products on the market and it is still going to glare at somebody in the neighborhood. Roger Meyerstien commented that there is only one home above his lot since it is one of the highest spots. The sun never comes from the north so there is absolutely impossible for them to get a glare. Chairperson Hunn asked the orientation of the home. A setting west sun in the summertime is going to create some kind of glare depending on the time of day they could effect any of those lots above you along that street. John stated that the intensity of it at that point is much less than it is when it is June 21 at noon. Roger Meyerstien commented that the piece of land is not only the second highest in Wildridge but the shape is round like. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 20 June 6, 1995 Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision FDR Meverstein Con.'t) John stated that he did a lot of research on the gloss of the roof because at the last meeting it was a very big issue. In the letter he received from the people who put on the finish stated that it will only reflect less than 12% at a 60 degree angle. Cars have a gloss of 250%. Sue Railton commented that the Vail Bible Church on Highway 6 has the light green roof and she does not see reflection off of that but the darker metal roofs tend to be more reflective. Chairperson Hunn stated that the Vail Bible Church roof product became the prototype for the Commissions criteria. This is also the product that was approved on the one home that is on the western side of the Wildridge Subdivision. John drove by that home in Wildridge and felt it had a higher gloss that the one he was proposing this evening. Chairperson Hunn commented that the Commissions criteria for consideration of metal roofs include the gage, which the applicant said was 24. The spacing of the ribs, 18 inches or less, the applicant stated would be 16 or 12 inches. A no glare product. The Commissions subjective determination that this site is appropriate for taking a risk on whether this product reflects or not. These are the criteria that the Commission has to consider. Sue Railton motioned to approve Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Review, with the recommendation of bringing back the design of the entrance. John asked if the entry could be brought back as an addendum. Rhoda Schneiderman replied yes. Mike Matzko asked the Commission if they wanted to be approving parts of buildings. He thought it was uncomfortable to approve parts of buildings and it creates some difficulty if they have to come back and they are not going to go through the building permit process it would be no extra time for the applicant to do just one approval for the whole thing. From an administrative standpoint it is much easier to deal with. Chairperson Hunn mentioned that there were some elements talked about like the 1:1 slopes, protection of the driveway and maneuvering space. While looking at the colorboard again Chairperson Hunn wondered if the stucco color might not appear to be too bright of an off white color. There are some other homes in the subdivision that, in a Planning &Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 21 June 6, 1995 Lot 85, Block 4 Wildridge Subdivision FDR, Meyerstein (Con.'t) P & Z meeting the colors, compared to a bright white piece of paper looked off white and in reality they are very stark on the hillside. If the Commission is going to see this again he would like the applicant to think about the color and look at some of the other examples in the subdivision, if the applicant could darken that stucco color a bit. John would be painting it a different color of white. Rhoda Schneiderman would like to see samples of the color when they are finally selected. Roger Meyerstein wanted the Commission to pick a color they wanted. Rhoda Schneiderman wanted the full color scheme to come back with the color for the front entryway to be an actual color sample, to look at the colors together. Rhoda feels the concept is a little bland. Rhoda would like to see the front entry way come back if any work was done on it and the landscape moved around. John asked at what point would you like it to come back. Could it be done after it .was submitted to the building department. Chairperson Hunn asked staff if this could be done. Mike Matzko stated the issue which is two weeks. The changes to the entryway will effect the building permit. The colors and so -forth, if we are to follow up on this design, we are creating what could be some really conflicting information and in fairness to the applicant, it winds -up causing them delays. John felt that if they wanted the entryway the same color as the rest of the house, he felt that would be fine. Chairperson Hunn wanted everyone to understand the proposal that the whole house is an off white yellow color except for the entry feature which is a white stucco. It appears that there are enough issues that are unresolvable tonight that Mike you are saying that the Commission table the item. Mike Matzko replied if these are big enough issues to the board to not pass right now then.... Rhoda Schneiderman stated that color and landscaping can come back, they have always come back. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, FDR, Meyerstein (Con.'t) Mike Matzko asked how significant of an issue is the Commission talking about. Rhoda Schneiderman was concerned with the front door. John commented he would be more than happy to submit an 8 1/2 x 11 addendum with the front entry colored. 22 Mike Matzko replied if the Commission is comfortable delegating that to staff he would be comfortable with that. Chairperson Hunn understood that Rhoda Schneiderman wanted to see the colors, landscape, and the front entry again. Mike Matzko stated he was trying to get to a clean approval so the applicant can be told he can build. Sue Railton suggested tabling. Mike Matzko replied that would be two weeks, is that something that the applicant can do to have a clean approval. The applicant would hate to see that happen but if that is what it takes. Sue Railton asked if the applicant has taken the colors up to Wildridge and compared them with buildings up there. John stated that the color was very similar to a home down the road, Mr. Schneider's home. He would hate to come back with s render drawings and still not be approved. Mike Matzko asked the Commission if the feature was significant enough in the Design Guidelines that we are supposed to go by to require the applicant to change this. Rhoda Schneiderman ask if Mike Matzko meant the entryway or the colors. Mike Matzko meant the entryway. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that it was all a matter of opinion at this point. Mike Matzko replied he felt compelled to point this out, we are given an ordinance and we are given a set of design guidelines and we are supposed to follow those and supposed to Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 23 June 6, 1995 Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, FDR, Meyerstein ,Con.'t1 judge everything that comes before this board in the context of that and if we happen to not like something it does not carry the weight law, it does not carry the weight of any sort of rule or regulation we have within this town. Mike hates to bring this up right now but we have some rules and legally we have to follow them. And if there is a sound, rational basis for changing somebody's design we are certainly entitled to do that but Mike would really hate to see this Board and this Town get into trouble and we are capable of doing that by making arbitrary and confused decisions. That maybe a little strong for what we are talking about here but when Mike hears terms like subjective and opinion and things like that, as your staff advisor Mike needs to tell you that you are treading on very thin ice there and Mike needs to make that very clear. It is not a personal statement it is the way the rule in the whole land use review and zoning and so forth work and there are ample records and cases, ample case law to deal with just those very issues. Chairperson Hunn commented that he hears what Mike is saying but what the Commission is taking issue with is a perception that this color may be too bright and reflective and there are examples in the neighborhood to show this. The Commission has made a suggestion that the entryway might be enhanced by recessing it and the applicant seemed interested in studying that. It is more of a suggestion and a voluntary issue in Chairperson Hunn's opinion. Sue Railton noted that the same comment was mentioned at the last meeting. Mike Matzko wanted to be clear on that sometimes he thinks it is communicated as direction rather than suggestion and the impression is the applicant does not get approval unless it is not done. Everytime we hold someone up on their project we cost them money. Sue Railton commented that the renderings are different to what was presented this evening. Bill Sargis felt it was not right. You do not treat people like this, over a recessed door you are going to make them delay two weeks. Paint colors you can bring back. We are talking about he cannot get a building permit because some of us do not like the door. That is not right. Chairperson Hunn noted that the way to test the opinion of this Commission is for someone to make a motion and see how the vote goes. Sue Railton stated that is what she was trying to do but then was told it was not complete enough. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 24 June 6, 1995 Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision FDR, Meyerstein Con.'t) Beth Stanley agrees that the recession of the door, if it is just a suggestion, how can we hold them back on that. Chairperson Hunn replied as we discussed, there were more issues than just the door. There was a landscape concern that the landscape plan addresses one side of the home and the Commission is looking for a complete solution. The colors apparently concern some of the Commission Members and the applicant was interested in taking a look at them again. Bill Sargis stated that does not delay the permit. Rhoda Schneiderman stated it can. If the Commission requires it to. Chairperson Hunn explained the Commission was about to make a motion with conditions and Mike Matzko suggested that the Commission wait because he would rather have a clean approval than a conditional approval. Mike Matzko ideally would recommend colors and landscape have ample precedent procedurally for that. It is when the Commission starts changing the structure of the building, that is where Mike personally feels we ought to draw the line. Mike's subjective opinion. Bill Sargis motioned to approve Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Review, Meyerstein on the provision that the applicant brings back the landscape plan and revised color scheme. Seconded by Beth Stanley. Chairperson Hunn asked if the motion included the metal roofing product proposed. Bill Sargis thought the roofing material was fine. Sue Railton question what was being approved for the front facade. Mike Matzko replied the revised set of plans. Chairperson Hunn clarified that the motion included the metal roof and the entry on the revised plan. Bill Sargis and Beth Stanley in favor of the motion. Jack Hunn, Rhoda Schneiderman, and Sue Railton nay. Motion fails. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, FDR, Meverstein Con.'t) Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to table Lot 85, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Final Design Review, Meyerstein. Seconded by Sue Railton. Jack Hunn, Rhoda Schneiderman, Sue Railton in favor of the motion. Bill Sargis and Beth Stanley nay. Motion carries. Lots 32/33 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Beck Addition 25 Mike Matzko stated the project is an addition to an existing warehouse and office, located on the northeast corner of Nottingham Road and Metcalf Road. The addition will match the existing structure in color and materials. The parking has been calculated using a conservative method, and appears to exceed the minimum requirement. Dave Peal was present representing the applicant, Beck & Associates. The original Lot 33 building was about 8,000 square feet and came before P&Z and was approved in 1985. In 1987 on Lot 32 a parking lot was created more than what was required for the building. The front part of the parking lot on Nottingham Road will remain the same. About a year and a half ago applicant came before the board and received final approval for a 5,000 square foot building, which represents the eastern wing on the small plan. The project was put on hold. This past spring the lot line was vacated between Lots 32/33. Now they are proposing rather than two separate buildings a "U" shaped building that would link the two with a total of 16,500 square feet of warehouse. The additional square footage is from the back of the -`U" was reduced. Everything will match the existing building. Rhoda Schneiderman questioned if the parking requirements were met through the additional space. Mike Matzko replied yes. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the trees were being replaced. Dave replied the ones out on the streetside will remain what is in the back will go. Dave would like a reasonable minimum be set for replacement. 2 to 3 inch caliper for replacement. Chairperson Hunn questioned the block for the building. Is the original building an integral color block. Dave replied no. It is a painted block. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Lot 32/33 Block 1 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision FDR_ Beck Con.'t► Chairperson Hunn commented that the color could be matched. Dave replied yes. Chairperson Hunn noted the metal elements that are the facia treatment and the garage doors, can that color also be matched. Dave replied yes. Chairperson Hunn questioned staff if the sign program needed to be amended. Dave answered that a year and a half ago when the applicant came through DRB they proposed the same signage program proposal with the original building that was approved. So no changes would be made. 26 Chairperson Hunn asked if the new tenants would share in the existing dumpster which is not accessible from within the property. Dave replied the proposed tenant now would be able to share the dumpsters. Rhoda Schneiderman replied basically the applicant is proposing to add three trees. Dave answered no. 7 new cottonwood and 2 relocated Colorado Spruce. Nine new trees. Sue Railton asked what was on the ground and where there is the snow storage on the front. Dave replied that it has been reseeded. Sue Railton motioned to approve Lots 32/33, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Beck Addition and that the sign program expands to these buildings. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion unanimously carries. Chairperson Hunn called for a short recess. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 27 June 6, 1995 Lot 3, Nottingham Station, Mdification, 69 Units. Wintergreen Townhomes Mike Matzko stated this is a redesign of the recently approved Nottingham Station PUD, Lot 3 (between Hurd Lane and the Railroad Tracks). The changes, as detailed in the attached letter from the applicant, Mark Donaldson, include an increase in the roof pitch, and reworking of the ground floor plan. The overall mass and orientation of the building have not significantly changed. Staff recommends approval. Mark Donaldson was present on behalf of the applicant. The dormers have changed. The stucco area changed from the proposed hardy board to the hardy plank with the same color scheme for the four buildings. The only stucco remaining will be on the chimney. Chairperson Hunn questioned on the previous scheme there was a central drive or access to lower garage forms on each end of the building. Does that still exist. Mark replied yes. Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to approve Lot 3, Nottingham Station PTJD, Modification, 69 Units, Wintergreen Townhomes. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion unanimously carries. Lot 34 Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Final Desitin Review, 26 Units Mike Matzko stated this project is a 26 -unit townhome/condominium development. It was presented to the Commission earlier this year; at that time, the buildings were essentially all against the north property line. On the current plan, one building is placed on the south side of the parcel. Parking is shared between this project and the adjacent property owner. Mark Donaldson was present on behalf of the applicant, Warner Developments. One major site plan revision has been made as well as incorporating the ideas that were mentioned at the conceptual review. Greenbriar consists of two phases, the original phase was 12 units. The applicant has taken the total of the parking requirements for the existing units and summed them up with required guest parking and to make that a total onto itself and has done the same for the rest of the project so no advantage is taken of the commingling of the total parking. Guest spaces are provided for each of the buildings. The previous proposal had a different layout with 27 units. Now there are 26 units and have created a sense of community. Building 91 and 92 consist of 6 units each with 2 bedroom flat condominiums, 1,977 sq ft each, single car garage. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 28 June 6, 1995 Lot 34, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, FDR, 26 Units (Con.'t) Rhoda Schneiderman felt that they had picked a yellow based color and a blue based color which clashed together. Steve Machino was present to explain the landscape plan. Chairperson Hunn questioned was there a current fence between the applicants property and the highway. Mark replied yes. Chairperson Hunn asked if they proposed to improve or change that for safety reasons. Mark replied it was something they have to get with the transportation department. Sue Railton mentioned the dumpster enclosures. Mark answered they would be relocated or a curb service would be provided. Sue Railton motioned to approve Lot 34, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Final Design Review, 26 Units. Seconded by Rhoda Schneiderman. Motion unanimously carries. Lot C, Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek Final Design Review, Hotel Mike Matzko stated this project is a 4 -story, wood frame, 80 -room hotel (Holiday Inn Express). The building will have stucco siding and a metal roof All on-site parking is surface. Staff recommends denial. Mark Donaldson was present representing the applicant. Mark feels very differently about these documents and they have spent a great deal of time researching. Mark went into detail about the adoption of various town documents and disagrees with Mike's point of view. Jeff Spanel was present as the project engineer. Mr. Machino is the landscape architect. Jim Wear present as the legal consultant. Mr. Russel Marring is the owner. Mr. Marring explained is one of the principles of Sunmar of Avon proposing this hotel project. This company owns and operates 20 hotels. The original 60 units proposed has been changed to 80 units at the request of the town to make it a larger hotel which added another million to the cost. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 29 June 6, 1995 Lot C, Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek, FDR (Con.'t) Mark explained that before the lot was purchased the applicant had set a series of meeting with the town staff to discuss their ideas for a hotel. The town staff was never unclear in their requests. We went right to the documents, Comprehensive Plan, Design Guideline, Town Center Zone District, Title 17, Transportation Plan. The town mentioned maybe a larger project including a 450 room hotel with a conference center and a public parking structure. The applicant was not interested in this size of project. The applicant listened since the property had not been purchased yet, no risk. They have taken every opportunity to meet the town's guidelines in great detail. After a series of meetings that the applicant closed on the property for 1.5 million dollars. An hour later Mark received a call from the town staff requesting a meeting because they were going to recommend denial of the project. Mark was told the town was looking at the proposal as very serious under development. Since then they have attended a Town Council worksession and have understood their concerns about growth. Mark discussed the town documents in detail. These documents were written 3 and 5 years ago. Jack Hunn and Buzz Reynolds are the only two remaining Commissioners that participated in that process. Mayor Reynolds was the only council member who participated. Many directors and planners have come and gone. Each leaving their own mark, ideas, and perspectives. Mark explained their proposal works well with the town. Changes have taken place since the Guidelines were written. Maximum development has not always been good for the town for example the Lodge at Avon Center had gone through 3 bankruptcies before it was completed. The mall has a Recreation Center that turns it back affecting the pedestrian center.' This project is providing lodging and meets much of the Design Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan suggestions and requirements. There are two vacant lots left in this Town Center neighborhood. The applicant cannot carry the burden of meeting all of the town's remaining requirements. They have come into the town on good faith, talked to the town staff, and have done the homework with preplanning conferences. Henry Vest was the only Commission member at the conceptual meeting that mentioned the project was underdevelopment. If you look around the county at the large hotels and see that every one of those has changed hands either upon completion, near completion, 3 years after opening, etc. Many have been financial nightmares. This applicant has been in the hotel business for more than 20 years. They have not built a hotel that do not still own and manage and operate. This project has a lot of pedestriazation for the Town Center. Mike Matzko questioned Mark that everyone there was familiar with the guidelines and it is rather late and would like to know if there is substantive discussion over those. There is some value in lengthening ones presentation and going on, knowing that this board is tired and faced with a tough decision, keep this in mind. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 30 June 6, 1995 Lot C. Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek, FDR (Con 't) Rhoda Schneiderman asked Mike what exactly do you as the town planner envision for this site that is not being fulfilled presently. Mike Matzko replied he did not have a specific project in mind and he has only been here for three months. One of the things he did in looking at this was to review the documents the town goes by. By state statute we are supposed to follow the comprehensive plan and when we make our zoning ordinance, likewise with the design guidelines. One of the definitions of a motel is that it is easily accessed by automobiles and you tend to park very near the building itself. It works but it causes a sea of asphalt. The suggestion of an underground parking would relieve this. Rhoda Schneiderman asked Mike he was against the type of project since it is a hotel/motel. Mike Matzko replied no. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if Mike thought the site was being under -utilize;'. Mike Matzko replied yes. The people using this place will be arriving by car. Someone wanting to shop will go to the Seasons and walk around. There is nothing to walk to this building (hotel). Mark Donaldson focused on the pedestrianization. There are three frontages to the project calling for three 25 foot setbacks. Mark proceeded to read sections of the Design and Review Guidelines. Mark felt the words permissive and mandatory were too many of these words to say they were used interchangeabley because they were clearly not used interchangeabley. Phase II applicant would be The First Bank of Eagle County. Bill Sargis stated that both Mike Matzko and Mark Donaldson have own definition relating to pedestrian experience. Bill thinks Marks has provided plenty of access for pedestrians. Mark feels that this neighborhood is coming together and this is one of the last missing pieces and this project can only do so much. All the projects around do not conform to the guidelines in a serious magnitude. Chairperson Hunn commented that we have only been dealing with philosophical and global issues and the Commission is supposed to do a full design review this evening. Clearly the vision of this town has changed over the past 15 years. The people who dreamed this town up saw a very different finished product than what will be achieved. The changes have been Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 31 June 6, 1995 Lot C, Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek FDR (Con.'t) brought about by a variety of influences. Part of your presentation relies on the sins of the past. One of the charges as a Commission is to try to learn from those mistakes and avoid them in the future and that is the motivation for creating these documents. Tile marke. has clearly changed. The original boundaries of the core are much smaller now. Architecturally Hunn perceives the town core from a distance based on the massing of the buildings. In the conceptual review he expressed a concern that the development of this site help transition the scale of those existing buildings down to the scale of the buildings that surround this area. He suggested that the -phase II was the most important of the two parcels in terms of the transition of that massing. Mark replied that he was seeing a conflict between Chairperson Hunrn and Mike 'i-latzko Chairperson sees the core in one area and you want to deal with it based on you- vision. Mike Matzko is telling us these are the rules Chairperson Hunn is talking about the characteristics of the core as it was intended and where it is still possible to achieve those goals. Many people are attracted to the park and recreational amenities that are adjacent to it. There is a little bit of retail that is beginning to work in the Season's. What is missing is a place.for somebody outside the community to come in and create the experience. Parking is a limiting factor in how many people you can attract to the core to experience the core. Bed base is another energizer of the Lore and you are proposing to provide bed base. Mr. Machino explained the landscape plan. Rhoda Schneiderman was concerned with the landscape was the fact that the parking lot was too large and she does not understand when Mark talks about security. She does not even lock her car. Sue Railton has the feeling if this was a top grade hotel Avon would accept it right away. If there cannot be some sort of compromise somewhere. Rhoda Schneiderman expressed that if a walkway was provided from the building not having to go through a parking area that parallels that road all the down and then connected with the mall area. With a true walk/bike path with landscape. Rhoda Schneiderman made the point that the town is pretty much 75% developed and what was envisioned for the town to look like has already past that point. Mark agreed with Rhoda's comment. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 32 June 6, 1995 Lot C. Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek FDR ('Con 't) Bill Sargis felt too much time had been spent on who is right and who is wrong. Everyone is here to decided what do we think about this leading to final design and review of this project. Chairperson Hunn commented that the final design and review takes into consideration: the Design Guidlines, Comprehensive Plan, P&Z Procedures; Zoning and the application and make a decision. Mike Matzko feels that this image of the town may not be achievable but something like it in the context of Avon may be achievable. Rhoda Schneiderman would rather see something underdeveloped but done in a way that creates a good feeling. As Chairperson pointed out that it should be scaled down since you have residential across the street. Mike Matzko stated that you cannot force anyone to develop this. There may be other people out there to develop this and again what is the time frame. We may not have given it enough time. Rhoda Schneiderman commented that they are at a point where they have purchased their land. Mike Matzko stated that this is not our problem. Mr. Marring stated that he was clearly under the impression that they had a complete working project. Mike Matzko replied that Mark Donadson made the statement that the staff was never unclear. Mark reviewed the documents and read for himself Mark replied he knew exactly what he was saying and he will say it again. The Town was not unclear with us with what they wanted. We did not say we could not deliver it but that is what they said they wanted. They wanted a 40,000 square foot conference center. 200 car parking structure and we put this project on hold for 30 days after a worksession with Town Council to explore that. We have delayed this project and we found out what the town wants and we just found out the check book does not match what they want. Mark feels it is a divergence of opinion. Mike Matzko wanted to clarify impression given by that statement was somehow an expectation. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 33 June 6, 1995 Lot C, Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek FDR (Con -'t) Mark feels there were expectations on both of their parts. Mike Matzko said the point is yes, it is private property but if the client had the ability to do whatever we wanted we would not be having this conversation. The fact is that we are a community and we have to live with the long term impacts of whatever it is that we do. Their are certain people who will never buy a house in Wildridge. Is that wrong, no. That means there is a certain design standard there and Mike knows there is ample case law to support the notion of aesthetic design. Mark wanted to presuppose that the Planning Commission denies this project. What the basis for denial be. Mike Matzko asked if Mark had a copy of his staff report. Mark felt they were at odds for the meaning of the weight of what is in your comments. Mark feels Mike wants more retail. Mike Matzko never said he wanted more retail. Your use is not inappropriate it is the manner in which it is applied. Based on these town guidelines this development does not fit in the context. Rhoda Schneiderman commented that Mike is looking for a total vision for the whole parcel as opposed to fragmented that does not create an experience. Mike Matzko stated the only thing we have seen is a fragmented version. Mark stated that yes, more development would create more energy which would radiate to the site in a more effective way. Mike Matzko has been careful to say that it is not more or bigger but the quality and the character and that is really what this is about. Mark does not know what he can do to create this experiece. Mike Matzko believes that you cannot do anything with this project that will make it within these guidelines. Chairperson Hunn wanted a definition if this was a hotel or a motel. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 3Y June 6, 1995 Lot C, Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek FDR (Con 't) Mr. Manning referred to his development as a hotel. Motel originated from a motor hotel which accommodates motor driven vehicles. Legally it is a hotel. Chairperson Hunn now believes that everyone is in agreement that this is a hotel. Which is on the list of allowed uses in that zone district. Mark asked Mike Matzko if this was a different project with different activities would come closer to meeting these comprehensive guidelines. Mike Matzko stated it would depend on the project.. Mark believe that they have a right to make this request. We believe we are within the rules and regulations with our application. We understand subjected to the design review rules and procedures. Most of tonight was spent on talking about what this site should be and Mark does not believe we can get there from here. Chairperson Hunn stated that we are now all familiar with the different sc„ools o thous=hr and philosophies. The Commisison has to make this decision on the basis ofthe total application and we still have not reviewed your building. Mark presented the rest of the building. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if any changes been made to the facade of the building. Mark replied yes. The rear of the building has step walls. Chairperson Hunn requested Mark address the mechanical units. Mark replied those units have been designed to conceal them. Chairperson Hunn stated that this project has been reviewed in great length including the philosophical conflicts and we have talked about three documents are going to serve as tools to help us make this decision. One document is the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan. The last document is the Design Guidelines. The document that has not been talked about is the Planning and Zoning Design Procedures Rules and Regulations. Mike Matzko stated the Commission should not make a decision unless they are sure that is what they want for the long term because this property will be developed at some point and if is not by this applicant it will be someone else, he will make money on this. C, C Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes 35 June 6, 1995 Lot C, Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek FDR (Con.'t) Mr. Manning commented that Mike Matzko's statement was ridiculous. We have a ton of money in this thing and the money was spent relying on the fact that we were working with the city. Mike Matzko apologized for his statement. Jim Wear, the attorney for the applicant was present. Rhoda Schneiderman motioned to approve Lot C, Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek with the following conditions.- CONDITIONS: onditions:CONDITIONS: 1. The landscape plan be brought back for approval to include a designed walkway to go the full length of the southern parameter from the hotel to the mall area and that it be landscaped; 2. Lighting plan; 3. The colors brought back. Seconded by Bill Sargis. Motion fails. Jack Hunn, Sue Railton, and Beth Stanley nay. Rhoda Schneiderman and Bill Sargis aye. Sue Railton motioned to deny Lot C, Avon Town Center at Beaver Creek. Seconded by Beth Stanley. Motion carries. Sue Railton, Beth Stanley, and Jack Hunn. Rhoda Schneiderman and Bill Sargis nay. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 1:30 AM. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes June 6, 1995 Respectfully submitted, Sheila Kremski Recording Secretary Commission Approval Q R A B H J. Date_