Loading...
PZC Minutes 030194I RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on March 1, 1994, in the Town Council Chambers, Avon Town Municipal Building, 400 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman John Perkins Members Present: lack Hunn, John Perkins, Buz Reynolds, Sue Railton Rhoda Schneiderman, Henry Vest Staff Present: Steve Amsbaugh, Director of Community Development, Mary Holden, Town Planner, Charlette Pascuzzi, Recording Secretary All members were present at the worksession and regular meeting except Patti Dixon. Lot 3. Nottingham Station, Subdivision Planned Unit Development, Public Hearine Steve Amsbaugh stated that SouthWest Partners are requesting approval for the completion of a PUD on Lot 3 of the Nottingham Station Subdivision. The property is currently zoned PUD but lacks the approved PUD development plan and development standards required by our code. He stated that the Nottingham Station property currently consisting of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and Tracts A and B were annexed into the Town in December 1981. At that time, Lot 3 received SPA zoning and no detailed uses or development standards or criteria were assigned at that time. The zoning designation SPA was changed to PUD in 1991. Therefore, the zone designation for Lot 3 switched from SPA to PUD, but did not carry with it any development standards or development plan as the code now calls for. Therefore, this lot does have the designation. The application proposed includes the next two steps in the process in completing the PUD zoning designation. Those two steps are the approval of a development plan and approval of development standards and guidelines. Amsbaugh reviewed the flip chart he had prepared to show the steps necessary for approval of the development plan and development standards. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 2 Lot 3. Nottingham Station. Subdivision Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing, (cont) The application received and reviewed consisted of a maximum 160 townhouse and condominium residential units on a 9.05 acre portion of this Lot 3. In addition they have proposed to dedicate a 3.51 acre portion of Lot 3 along the Eagle River to the Town of Avon as open space. In addition that, the third element of this PUD plan is a 50 ft. right-of-way for Hurd Lane dedicated through the property in an east west direction as shown on the PUD plan. Basically, what they have is a linear site in an east west direction with the Eagle River running along the south property line, the railroad tracks along the north property line and access to the site is via Avon Road and Hurd Lane intersection. The Hurd Lane dedication runs through the property to the far property line near the Eaglebend area. The site features consist of relatively flat topography to a terraced bluff that leads down to the river on the southern portion of the property and those bluffs range from 30 to 50% grade. The site layout generally is proposed to be broken into two residential components, one will be a condominium component along the railroad tracks in the east west fashion; the other will be a townhouse component which generally lies along the river. As mentioned earlier, there is a 3.5 acre open space tract dedication which goes to the property line and on the north side it consists of 30 ft. setback from the mean high water line and that has been surveyed. Currently, this site has emergency and public facility access through an easement in an easterly direction to the Eaglebend property and that easement is for emergency vehicle use and public transit use at this time. There is no general public access at that point right now. The development guidelines that this applicant is proposing to place on this development consists generally of the following: Setbacks would be consistent with the zoning code, however it would also inclu ±e specific setback requirements along the east and west property ends of the main property of 10 feet, the north property perimeter of 20 feet, the south property setback would be the setback from the mean high water line, 30 feet back from that. The building setbacks from either side of Hurd Lane they are requesting to be ten feet, the building separations would be a minimum of ten feet. The technical advisory committee, which consists of the public works department, the town engineer, fire, and planning reviewed this project and these setbacks for example are consistent for what they would require. The height they propose would be a maximum building height of 48 feet. Density would be a maximum, not to exceed 160 dwelling units on the total parcel. That is approximately 17 units per acre. Site coverage is proposed at 35% of the total developable area, excluding the river front portion. Landscaping, not only are they proposing the 3.51 acre open space tract delineation, but they are also proposing that the 9 acre development portion of this site, that 20% of that be in landscape area at a minimum. Parking would be consistent with the Town's Zoning Code. They have a phasing plan that was presented to staff for analysis. Phase I would consist of the construction of Hurd Lane right-of-way improvements, including drainage features and distribution of site utilities to and near each future building site and the construction of buildings 6 and 7. Phase 11 would consist of the construction of buildings 4 and 5. Phase III would be buildings 3 and 8. Phase IV would be buildings 1, 2 and 9, and Phase V would be buildings 10, 12, 11, and 13. There will be an allowance so certain phases could be done in combination. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 3 Lot 3, Nottingham Station, Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Heating, (cont) Amsbaugh stated that Staff has done a one month Staff analysis of this project. They feel, through the review process that the applicant should be required to complete the connection to Hurd Lane, which is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Transportation Plan. They also show a bus stop in this development, therefore Staff feels the bus stop is appropriate and is consistent with the Town Transportation Plan. Staff has requested and received a wetlands delineation map along the river, and they have respected the wetland delineation in terms of their setback requirements mentioned earlier. Amsbaugh stated that rather than read the three pages of Staff comments related to conformity with the various plans, codes, and regulations, since the Commission has had the report since last week, he would skip reading them. If there are any questions about individual ones, he would be glad to answer. Amsbaugh stated that, with this brief review in mind, and with the fact that the applicant will also make a presentation, he stated that Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the PUD development plan and the development standards for Lot 3, Nottingham Station, with the following conditions: 1. The PUD Guidelines and Standards described above in this report, including allowed uses, density, site access, and development standard, be incorporated into and binding upon the PUD zone district designation for the parcel. 2. The Hurd Lane connection be completed by the applicant prior to the construction cf Phase I. 3. No site disturbance, including grading or structures be allowed within the 30 foot mean high water mark setback. 4. A protective fence be installed along the 30 foot setback from the mean annual high water mark, prior to and during all phases of construction. 5. A pedestrian trail pathway be shown on the PUD plan along the Eagle River. This trail shall connect to Hurd Lane west of building I . The developer shall construct this pathway during Phase 1. 6. The final PUD Development Plan shown for existing Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision as three development tracts and one open space tract, and that each tract show the size, intended use and maximum allowable density. Amsbaugh pointed out on the map what he meant by that last condition. He stated that there is a development tract for condominiums, which is a separate land use divided by a right-of-way, and then there is the townhouse development along the river, and then there is Mauri Nottingham's out parcel, and then there is the open space tract_ This would be a more clear way to represent the true PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 4 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision. Planned Unit Development. Public Hearing (cont land uses that would be approved. They should also provide a table showing what is approved for each tract. It is a clarity mechanism. It is more of a technical condition that a condition that is debatable. Mark Donaldson., representing SouthWest Partners, stated that he would like to start by highlighting some of the positive aspects of the proposal. They are proposing to build appropriate residential density of a wide range of residential housing that will be available to rent and also for sale. They are proposing to provide and complete the 1500 foot length to connect Hurd Lane to the east and west end of their parcel. Donaldson stated that they are proposing to dedicate 47% of their site area to the Town of Avon, the 50 foot right-of-way through the entire site, as well as the 3.51 acres open space river front. The river front dedication will also include, at their expense, the connection of a walkway along the river and additionally the stairs along the west end of the access from tracts A, B and what will be known as tract C. He stated that their application includes the completion of the bus service linkage between Eaglebend and the Town of Avon, through their property to the Town Core. They are continuing the linkage of the central residential components as well. The density proposed is very much in keeping with the Town standards. He stated that the quality of the water that runs through Metcalf Ditch will be protected and maintained in a superior fashion. They are also proposing to improve the existing Swift Gulch drainage which will be between lots 4 and 5. They are meeting the goals and objectives of the river front district development. Lastly, they are able to propose these uses with all the constraints, without any variances. They have a long narrow site. Donaldson stated that the townhomes shown along the river front are very carefully designed for privacy, and views. They have taken great care to study the grades, and the impact on the river front. He stated that the construction fence will assist in controlling any disturbance to the river front. They will be removing around twenty eight mature cottonwood trees, however, they are proposing a very aggressive landscape plan for replacement. The replacement of the trees will be as outlined in the Comprehensive Town Plan regarding the replacement of trees. The interior townhomes, shown above the riverside townhomes are of similar design as the riverside homes, except they are smaller, lower priced units. On the north side of the parcel between Hurd Lane and the railroad tracks is the lesser expensive condominium apartment development. They are designed primarily to provide a buffer from the railroad noise. He stated that a letter from the railroad had been received stating that there was no objection to the project as long as their stated requirements were met. Donaldson stated that on the east end they are proposing a play area. They have very limited areas where a play area can be located. He stated that they have taken the Commission comments from the last meeting regarding doing something about the linear look by providing undulating sidewalks which move in and out of the right-of-way and enhancing them with berming and extensive landscaping. Donaldson described the four drawings provided to show the proposed em% PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 5 Lot 3 Nottingham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development, Public Hearin cont look of the project. He stated that probably the most important thing that they have been able to do is to provide offsets in buildings and the undulation of Hurd Lane. Mr. Donaldson made a comment regarding a speed limit of 30 miles per hour, however, the actual statement is not clear as he was apparently turned away from the microphone. The traffic circulation pattern on the proposed site is very clean and efficient. He stated that they are proposing only two cross over intersections within the development and they meet all Town standards. Mr. Donaldson stated that concluded his comments. Chairman John Perkins then opened the public hearing portion of this meeting, asking if there was anyone in the audience that wished to address this proposal. Mr. George Pietro, stated he representing Bill Nottingham who is the owner of Nottingham Station, Lots I and 2, which is basically the land between the proposed Lot 3 development and Avon Road. He stated that they have reviewed the plans as submitted, and the traffic reports and lie would like to comment particularly on some phases of the traffic report. They have something that says that 300 cars will not in anyway impact Hurd Lane. With 155 or 160 units there will probably be that many cars. He stated that the traffic report indicates that there is substantial congestion on Avon Road at the present time. He stated that he stood there at five o'clock tonight and he can verify that there is gross confusion at that corner. Yet the traffic report says that another 300 cars a day will not bother anybody. The two tracts of land owned by Mr. Nottingham are zoned commercial and perhaps someday will be developed, but the traffic report doesn't in any way take into account any future development of these two lots. He stated that they are primarily objecting to the density that has been requested. He stated that it would behoove the Commission and Planning Staff to make some basic decisions of what kind of development are we going to have within the Town of Avon. Are we going to take the developer who is trying to get the maximum density he can possibly get? Pure greed, or are we going to say what is best for our town? They have not addressed, for all purposes, hardly any of the impacts that 150 or 60 units is going cause. They have one little playground that will accommodate the first 12 kids that get to it, but outside of that they have made no provisions for recreational facilities, park facilities, educational facilities, or anything else. You as a Town are going to have to provide to educate those children, to provide recreational facilities, to do what is necessary to accommodate the needs of 160 families. Why should we, when the developer is here with the sole purpose of seeing how many dollars he can scrape out of Avon and leave. He stated that they feel very strongly that the density is at least or almost twice what it should be. The Staff comes up with the idea that Eaglebend down the road has a high density, so why not high density here. He said they should go down to Eaglebend and see if that is the kind of development that they perceive to be the best for our town. He stated that he feels very strongly that they are abusing the privilege of development in Avon and it will be a question of what kind of community we will have and it depends on the type of density they are talking about. He stated that he feels the visual impact /o PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 6 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development, Public Hearin%L (cont) of three story buildings along the railroad track. would be very detrimental to the Town. He feels that the site plan does not in any way take into account the needs of the people that are there. He stated that when he was here before with an application for a filling station on the corner, the Commission was concerned with the idea of as many as 100 cars a day at that intersection, and now they are talking about 150 units with two cars each. What are you trying to accomplish? He asked if we are here to accommodate the greed of the developer, or are we here to try to focus on a development plan for a Town of Avon that we all can look back and be proud of He stated that he feels the development plan is greedy. It is designed solely for the purpose of those who come in and want to take the dollars and leave. He stated that in Glenwood Springs they have an affordable housing project that got only 10 units per acre. By providing for a playground, parking areas, and green belts, etc., they could never get 17 units per acre on this property. They say they are giving away 47% of the land. What is it? It is the Eagle River that you cannot do a damn thing with and it is a road that is for their benefit. They are not thinking of what is good for the rest of us. They are only focus is on what is good for them. He stated that Bill Nottingham was born and raised in this area and he is sorry that he cannot be here tonight due to illness, but he has asked that he express his concerns for the overall approach that is being taken for the development of the Town. He asked if they were doing it with the most people, the most congestion and the most impossible situation without regard to what is good for the Town, just because it is good for the developers, because it enhances their pockets, or are we trying to do something that would be best for the Town. He stated that he would recommend the approval of the plan, but with a density of not to exceed ten units per acre, with a commitment for parks, recreational facilities as well as a small playground and to address the problems that are going to be created by 300 people and 300 cars in a 9 acre site. He stated that he hopes the Commission will take these thoughts into consideration and if any approval is made, do it with some authority on their part as to how a development would best effect and enhance the Town of Avon. Frank Doll stated that he was here to speak for Imogene Doll, his wife, who is the owner of an adjacent property. He stated that they are not anti -development people. They are anti -density people. He stated that if they were anti -development or "not in my back yard" people they would not have lived here for twenty five years. He stated that he has watched the development of the Eagle River corridor since 1973 when it started in Eagle -Vail and then proceeded on down the river to Avon. The Eagle -Vail Shopping Center, the Eagle Vail Golf Course, McGrady Acres, which has been approved by the County, Eaglebend, our place and Mauri Nottingham's place. In that entire thing they have only cut down one tree and that was over where we did 270 units of affordable housing. In this proposal Mark says they are going to cut down twenty trees, but he has already counted where they will cut down more than forty. Some of these trees, such as on the west end of the development and some on the east end are more than 80 years old. He stated that he doesn't care how many trees you bring in a five gallon bucket, or how ever they are brought in, you don't PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 7 Lot 3 Nottini ham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development Public Hearing. (cont) replace 80 year old trees. They do object to the cutting of the trees on the west end of the project and on the east end. Mr. Doll stated that he does not know who figured out to pul. a townhouse out on the river at the far eastern end. That bank is so steep that you cannot climb it. He stated that he has fished that area for forty years, so don't tell him he doesn't know what he is talking about. If you take the 30 foot setback from the river and the wetlands down there and up to the Metcalf Ditch it is a 50% grade. To put a unit in there it will be so expensive that he doesn't know how they ever get their money out of it. There is about 300 feet there that is that steep. They will have to cut down some 20 large cottonwood trees (he demonstrated how big around) to get anything in there at all. He stated that the man who spoke before him said all that needed to be said about traffic, etc. He stated that Mark said something that left him pretty cold when he said there would be a 30 mile an hour speed limit through there. The speed limit up in the Eaglebend affordable housing and all the way up through Eaglebend to the Town limits is 25 miles per hour. He stated that he has been in a habit of walking up there almost every day and it is nothing to see cars coming down there at 40 to 50 miles per hour and nobody doing anything about it. The appli-ant is proposing a ten foot setback and let cars go through there at 30, which means they will go 40 or 50 and he doesn't see anything to keep the kids out of the streets. When you have this kind of density in a project it creates a domino effect. The first one is cutting down the trees, the second one is all the traffic that Mr. Pietre talked about, and the third one is parking. In Eaglebend in the affordable housing, they made spaces supposedly for all the cars that needed to park there for 270 units. All the places where you can park and where there are no parking signs, anybody can see them, there are cars parked. The same thing will happen here. Another thing is snow stor"ge. It will keep on snowing forever and ever and there will have to be some place to put it. You are only ten feet from the street and there is only ten feet between buildings and you have all these cars there so where are you going to put the snow. Mr. Doll stated that they are not against the development of this property and never have been. He stated that he has had thousands of conversations about the development of this property with Mauri Nottingham, one of the owners. and he would like to see the property developed the way it should be. He would like to see a nice development there. It is the last good open piece of open ground next to the river in this whole valley and it deserves the very best that it can get. Chris Ekrem stated that she lives to the east of this project. She stated that she felt the previous comments were very appropriate. She feels that they should make use of the site as it is, saving the natural landscaping of this area She stated that the report about circulation and access to Hurd Lane and that is going to go to the east end. She asked what happens to it then. There has been, for a number of years a problem of a no man's land between Hurd Lane and the cul-de-sac on Eaglebend Drive because of a problem that the Eaglebend Partnership had many years ago and when the Eaglebend Partnership joined with the Town of Avon to develop the affordable housing she also asked this question. What happens there? They said it is going to be for emergency vehicle access and that is all because of this no man's land situation. She asked if now would it be cut through and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March I, 1994 Page 8 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development, Public Hearn g, cont finished all the way to the cul-de-sac.' If so, then will the people in this development also have an option to go out and go through the Eaglebend housing project area of Eaglebend Drive and then out to Hiway 6 via Stonebridge or all the way to McGrady Acres. She also asked what happens if there is a new interchange off of 1-70 coming into Hiway 6. She would like to have these questions answered. She also questioned the 10 foot setbacks along Hurd Lane. She stated that if a fifty foot right-of-way is dedicated that would mean there would probably be 30 foot of pavement and 10 foot on either side and then the minimum 10 foot setback. A regular setback required for anything that the rest of us do in that neighborhood is twenty five feet. She thinks that this ten feet is nothing. She stated that she would also question the height limitation of 48 feet. She asked where that comes from. All the rest of us had to stay within the 35 foot limit She stated that they also speak of a bike path which is dedicated. A bike path along the river is not proposed It is proposed along Hurd Lane, which is not compatible with the 300 cars along Hurd Lane in a 30 foot paved area. John Railton stated that he spoke up when the Eagiebend affordable housing was proposed regarding the lack of playgrounds, etc and the density,. and when he looks at this project he has the same kind of thoughts. He stated that he would need to review the project more before he could make a statement about the density of this project. It seems that it is appropriate to have an increased density as you go toward the town center. As it gets close to the town center it might encourage people to walk into town rather than use cats. He thinks it is time to start considering densities as they get towards town centers that have more to do with what he calls the European approach and that is that you have to make sure that a public transportation system will be provided to reduce the amount of car usage It has to be a viable transportation system. He stated that he does think the project has too much density. He also commented on the parking situation, however due to a crying baby, his comments were not clear. With no further comment from the public, Chairman Perkins officially closed the public hearing. The Chairman asked the applicant if he would like to respond to the comments made during the public hearing. Mark Donaldson stated that he did not mean to offend Mr. Doll with the 30 mile per hour speed limit. He stated that he couidn't agree snore that the speed limit should be lower. They have debated this with the Town Engineer and have reviewed all the standards required by the highway department standards that are adopted by the Town of Avon and this street by designation according to the comprehensive plan and transportation plan, requires a 30 mile per hour speed limit. They would be most happy to have it reduced to twenty or twenty-five miles per hour Donaldson stated, in response to Ms Ekrem's comment about 30 feet of asphalt, the Towri s standard for such a city street are 24 feet of asphalt and includes curb and gutter. There on either side of the roadway on the backside of the curb a greenbelt and the required sidewalk which is being designed to be bicycle PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 9 Lot 3. Nottingham Station. Subdivision Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing- (cont) width according to Town standards. Regarding the 48 foot building height which was questioned, this is in accordance with the definition of building height in the Title 17 Zoning. They are not trying to change the definition, they are simply trying to comply. In an are that is such an important link on the fringes of the Town Core and emerging urban area such as this river front area we could be seeking heights as much as 50 to 60 feet high, but they want to limit themselves to 48 feet. They do feel that the bike path is being proposed in an appropriate location. It is natural in this country for bicycles and vehicles be aligned in this type of use. They see no reason, because of the grade to try to get them down to the river for a short distance. In addition to allowing the interconnect between the developed areas, they are proposing to design the bus shelter to Town standards. He stated that there has been tens of thousands of dollars spent by the Town of Avon and thousands and thousands of public citizen input on worksessions and public hearings to develop the comprehensive plan, transportation plan and design guidelines. He stated that if this proposal is inappropriate in the eyes of the Town of Avon, then they have been grossly misled by the Town documents that have been prepared and enforced in the last few years and they would be forced to withdraw this application. He stated that Mr. Railton spoke regarding the perceived percentage of open space which was reviewed during the last meeting. They are on the dramatically conservative side of their impacts. They have very high percentages of open space. They have 35 to 40% of the parking is covered. All of the townhomes have garages. Some are single car garages, but most are two car garages. He stated that they are very much aware of the difficulty of development on the east end of the parcel. They have had extensive survey work done on it. He stated that what might not be perceived is that the units are being terraced along the river front. They will be conforming to the topography. The are here tonight to develop quality residential units along the Eagle River. There will be no parking on Hurd Lane. There are no individual driveway cuts on Hurd Lane. It is a very organized, very clean and efficient road plan being proposed. He stated that he would now turn the meeting back to the Commission. Chairman Perkins asked Sue Railton for her comments. Ms. Railton asked about the 30 foot setback on the riverside and if it takes them right into the river. Mark Donaldson stated that the property line is in the middle of the Eagle River. Then there is a flood plain, and then there is the mean annual high water line. That is where the 30 foot setback comes from. Railton asked how much they will be c++ting into the bank of the Eagle River. Donaldson stated that sometimes 10 to 1A feet. Railton stated that she would not be in favor of cutting into that natural bank of the E'agle River. The houses through Eaglebend were not allowed to do that. They had to keep the vegetation on the river the same as it was. She thinks the density of those townhomes along s PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 10 �7 �,- Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing- (cont the Eagle River is far too great. She does not mind if you get more density back by the railway line, but not down by the Eagle River. Also, if Hurd Lane is going to be a dedicated roadway in Avon, why shouldn't it conform with the twenty-five foot setback that everyone else has to conform with. She would like to see the density on the river portion cut down to 10 per acre. She is not in favor of cutting down those trees. This is one of the last parcels along the rive, that is going to be available for development and those beautiful old trees do not need to be cut down. As far as the connection between the east end of Hurd Lane and whatever happens to Eaglebend, they have to keep it open for emergency access, and she thinks that should be thz case, but not to open it up as a street going right through. It would become a racetrack from there right up to the old Nottingham Sand and Gravel Bridge. That would throw more traffic down our end of Eaglebend Drive. She thinks a walkway should be put through there, so the people from the Eaglebend Apartments could cut through this way, because if your putting up a fence there, there are hundreds of people that walk down that railway line and they will have to use some other access. She thinks this project should have picnic areas, more than one playground with that density and she thinks that if they are holding the development to the top of the bank of the Eagle River it gives realistic open space then for public access. This plan does not give realistic access. The access is mostly the river itself. Donaldson asked for clarification. Railton stated that they say they are dedicating 3 point something acres of land to the Town for the public access and she thinks that when it is analyzed properly that most of that access is really water, not land that can be used She stated that they have walked that length of the river several times and those banks are very steep. Donaldson asked permission to reply to these comments. He stated that regarding the density, at the previous meeting the Commission members that were present agreed that 190 units would be reasonable for this type of development. He stated that they have studied it at great length and gotten more detail and by their own standards have reduced it to 160 units. Donaldson stated that, as far as the riverside development, there are areas that the topography is exceeding with regard to the high water mark and the flood plain area. It is not readily perceived without studying the engineered plan as far as the elevations as they occur along the bank. They are proposing to nestle the townhomes into this riverside to have the walkout. If they pull back they would probably lose about 40 to 50% of the density. Part of the enhancement of this particular side of the development is to be able to have tF-t relationship to the river. Regarding the setbacks on Hurd Lane, one of the ideas of a PUD is that t1l"ese kinds of standards are negotiated with appropriate development They feel that they have worked with the Town Staff to analyze the needs of public works and the other Town operations that would be operating in and around and through this street to be able to afford them the necessary maintenance status. When you consider the amount of dedication and the setbacks they have they are providing a considerable amount of open space and other benefits that would not otherwise be enjoyed in a straight residential zone district. He stated that the trees are an issue that they are very sensitive to as well. There are a lot of trees they are leaving unharmed. PLANNUgG AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 11 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing. (cont) They have designed the townhomes where the foundation walls are set back six to eight feet from the actual setback. There will be no grade changes, no disturbance to vegetation, wetlands or environmental conditions that exists. They agree with not making Hurd Lane a through street. Right now the proposal allows the access of emergency vehicles and mass transportation vehicles. Railton asked if by mass transportation do they mean the bus would go along there. Donaldson stated that it would. Railton asked how they would keep cars out. Donaldson stated that there would be a control gate Railton asked if he meant like the Town of Vail, where they break them down everyday' She does not think that is reasonable. Donaldson stated he does not know how else to do it. Railton stated that she thinks Hurd Lane should be open only to emergency vehicles. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that she originally looked at the project as appropriate with some adjustments to fit the site better. She stated that she walked the site on Sunday and she is starting to lean toward a lower density side. She stated that she apologizes if that causes any problems, but to be honest, now that they have had more time to look at it and the full plan has been presented, she for one feels that she would be irresponsible in just going ahead and giving blanket approval when she has reservations. She thinks the 10 foot setbacks off of Hurd Lane are grossly inadequate. By the time you get snow storage and landscaping in there, there will not be room for one or the other. Which buildings are going to be the forty eight foot height° Donaldson stated the riverside. Schneiderman stated that it seems to her it should be just the opposite. The taller buildings should be along the railroad tracks and they should get progressively shorter as you get toward the rive, to allow for some view corridor and not a total blocking out. She realizes that the other units are lower priced, but she does not think they would be sacrificing any quality by making the river front units lower. She stated that the three story unit is easily achievable at a thirty five foot height. It is done all the time in different areas of Wildridge, where you have a walkout level and two full levels above it. She stated she remembers when the gas station came through and they were extremely concerned about traffic She stated that she doesn't know how the Town Engineer feels that this is not going to be a problem at all without any kind of traffic tight scheduled there immediately. Steve Amsbaugh stated that the Town Engineer did review the traffic study, had some questions of his own, discussed that with the traffic engineers that prepared it and was satisfied that the situation could be solved. The intersection itself is designed right now as a three lane intersection coming out. of Hurd Lane with a left turn lane, a right turn lane and a through lane. There has been talk about an intersection light there when the proper warrants are reached, especially if the property on the west is developed. It is close to the Town Core. It is designated as a collector street, not a local residential street. A collector street handles certain volumes, it has been designed at this point for that volume and the continuation of Hurd Lane, according to the Transportation Plan would allow that through street to serve as such. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 12 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing- (cont Schneiderman stated that with the buses going down Hurd Lane, and the fumes they create, and windows being open, at ten feet away, she thinks that would be an intolerable situation. She thinks that more open space with playgrounds, etc., is needed. There are so many projects around that are built on the river that have dealt with traffic as well as open space and playgrounds and better distances from the river, very effectively. The Reserve might be a lesson to be learned. They have decent space between buildings and there are certain areas where they have long distances to the river and it makes for a very attractive workable space. She stated that she would rather see them add another story to the condominiums, throw in some elevators and lose some density along the river. Henry Vest stated that this is a tough site and can't be compared because it is so thin, compared to some of the others mentioned. Henry Vest feels that Hurd Lane ought to be opened up for through traffic. Vest stated that when they came in for conceptual that there seemed to be certain spots where there was more than a ten foot building to building setback so that the two buildings in between could kind of look through. Donaldson stated that there was a little bit more splaying of the units, but with the refinement of the river setback it took a more organized shape along there. Vest stated that he thinks Donaldson has done a really good job trying to put a nice project on. Vest asked what the height of the building on the riverside tommhomes on the Boulder Lane side. Donaldson stated it is a two story building. Vest then it ;,s probably not really that high on that side. Vest stated that along the 30 foot setback if you have a pedestrian walkway and a bicycle path that, makes it pretty small. That is the one, that, since were trying to, this whole thing is trying to protect the Eagle River, that is the one that seems to be the toughest one to work with for him., that and also of course the building separations of ten feet, which you have balcony projections of no more than two feet into each setback so you have a possibility of having six feet in between comer to comer on a balcony between each unit. Those would be his concerns. He does think that snow storage needs to be talked about. Jack Hunn stated that he is glad to see that the density has been reduced from the 190 units proposed at conceptual review. He stated that density, in terms of units per acre, could be appropriate or inappropriate, depending on the type of unit, the style of development, how tall the buildings are, whether they are a vertical development or in your case a townhome development with very little vertical development in the proposal. He doesn't feel uncomfortable with the density taken as density, but some of the impacts of that density, for example, traffic. He stated that he has also visited the site, and observed that intersection. He stated that he had some concerns when the gat station was proposed, based on the traffic that commercial activity would generate. There will be two commercial operations on that comer, plus the traffic generated by this development. He is concerned about how that traffic will be managed at that intersection. The way he calculates it, five cars can que for a left turn before the queing lane is full and the queuing would then be out in one of 7-2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 13 Lot 3. Noyingham Station Subdivison. Planned Unit Development, Public Hearin (cont� the traffic lanes and that would be making a left turn into Hurd Lane. He stated that he tried to anticipate how difficult it would be for someone trying to exit the project to turn left and return to Hiway 6 to travel east or west. He thinks there will be a lot of frustration on the part of the customers of the commercial ventures, as well as the residents trying to turn left without the assistance of a traffic light. It is very close to the intersection of Avon Road and Hiway 6 and to imagine two traffic lights in that distance is a little awkward. He stated that he also tried to imagine some of the impacts of promoting through traffic through Eaglebend. Politically, and with property ownership issues, he does not know if it would even be possible. If it were possible, he is not sure that he would be comfortable with it. He stated that traffic is a significant concern for him. The traffic impacts could be mitigated by a reduction in density. With regard to this proposal, the Comprehensive Plan, the land use plan, page 4.7 speaks to the issue of the river corridor. High priority should be placed on incorporation of public pedestrian spaces that allow river access. Hunn stated that it also talks about these land; having the potential to be developed for a combination of land uses, as long as the uses and physical design of the site are sensitive to the natural riparian environment. Then in the sub area 7, river residential district it speaks again about a goal being the preservation of the riparian environment along the Eagle River, and specifically that where possible, buildings and parking areas should be located to preserve and promote the health of existing quality trees. In touring the site he was impressed with the existing trees and in particular two stands of trees, one on the east and one on the west side that could be an asset to your development if they could find a way to retain some of those trees. The are not only valuable to your site for internal development, but when you view your development site from any other vantage point, particularly Hiway 6, as people look across at Eaglebend, the preservation of those trees really contributes to the success of the project of that density and that scale. He feels it would be detrimental to the Town and to the project to lose all of those trees. He is also concerned with the proposal to put a pedestrian pathway along the river, because what that means is the removal of more trees and would require grading. He is also concerned with the setbacks. He realizes that a PUD is a negotiation and it allows us to impose different standards on a development that might be inconsistent with the standards that exist on projects that just rely on zoning ordinances. The proximity of one building to another being ten feet apart with overhangs and balconies into the ten foot spw.e is very tight. The proximity of the buildings to Hurd Lane roadway is also significantly tighter than most other standards that the Commission deals with. He thinks some good points have been made about the safety of people on those sidewalks that close to the road, particularly in the winter when that area will be a valuable snow storage Hunn stated that he tends to agree with :he comment made about the dedication of 47% of the land, because part of it is necessary for circulation, and part of it is undevelopable. Twenty percent of landscaping of the net developable area is probably an adequate number, but as a percent of the gross land area it is a much smaller number. It is really 10% of the gross area. There is a comment in the Town regulations that suggests that fifteen percent of the parking area should be dedicated as snow storage. He asked Donaldson if that had been PLANNING AND ZONING COM IISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 14 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing— (cont) considered or calculated in any way. Donaldson's reply is not clear as he was not at a microphone and he spoke very softly. Hunn asked how many square feet of parking lot area is there for the project, approximately. Donaldson stated he did not have that figure. Hunn stated that if you take that aree times 15% and dedicate that to snow storage, you really shouldn't plant any significart landscaping in that area. Donaldson made a comment about the Hurd Lane setback, and about providing it in strict accordance to the Town Engineers something about curbs, but most of his comments are not clear. Some of what he was saying was about green space between curb and sidewalks and concerned snow storage, but these comments are not clear either. Hunn stated that one of the things that he considers when he looks a t a PUD is the degree to which it varies from the standards they are used to. If 25 foot is a standard front setback, 10 foot is significantly different. and if 10 foot side setbacks, creating 20 foot spaces between buildings is the standard minimum, 10 foot is significantly different. The degree to which you are getting relief from those normal standards is significant in this proposal. Hunn stated, to sum up, he is concerned about traffic, the loss of trees and he feels that a comprehensive site visit, possible with some of the footprints staked and limits of development staked, would be appropriate. Buz Reynolds stated that he for one feels that a 48 foot wall of buildings going across the Eagle River is not attractive. It is too much right on the water. The density is too much. With the other two uses yet to be developed, there will be too much impact on that road. If Hurd Lane does not go through and this thing has to stand on its own, which it possibly could, he feels like it will really restrict the density that is going to be usable on this site. As far as snow storage goes, you have addressed that. It will be a tough place to move snow and you will just have to deal with it. He stated that he does feel that, as far as green space, he feels that there is too much impervious materials. It just do esn't seem to work for him. He feels that they need less density on this thing. He stated that if the buildings could be brought back off the river, and the forty eight foot buildings and the mass of the buildings all the way down that river frontage is lessened, he would like the project. John Perkins stated that in the previous meeting he was concerned with the linear nature of the development along Hurd Lane, and at that time they had some buildings that were off of this access and with this plan, with the exception of the lower right hand building, it looks to him like virtually every building is on a north south access and he thinks that hurts the overall perception of the project. That was his major concern with the Eaglebend project was that they had checkerboard square of building there and no deviation or variation in the layouts of the buildings which he thinks would add an interest to the overall plan. He stated that he agrees with the majority of the comments made by the other members, but he also thinks that since this site is located close to the Town core it has to cant' a certain amount of density. Perkins asked what the density was in the two buildings in the center of the plan and the one in the right hand comer. Donaldson stated that it was 21 units. r� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 15 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision_ Planned Unit Development Public Hearin (cont) Perkins stated that an alternative might be to take that density and disperse it vertically over the remainder of the buildings which would free you to drop Hurd Lane, probably increase some setbacks and pull the development along the river off the river somewhat and maybe variegate the elevations of the buildings along the river so you would not look at a wall forty eight high. Perkins asked what the size of those 21 units were. Donaldson stated that they were around 1700 sq. ft. Perkins asked about the condo units. Donaldson stated that they were 1, 2 and 3's in three floors. Perkins stated that he thinks that they need to look at an alternative to get a density that still works for the applicant and try to address some of the comments that the Commission has made. He stated that he thinks losing an eighty year old cottonwood tree is a major concern for him. He thinks that the irrigation systems and the final landscape plans for th;s need to make sure that those cottonwood trees are going to continue to get the water that they need. Perkins stated that they have never seen a topo that shows the existing trees. He also thinks that the development on the fifty percent slope at the east end needs to be avoided. Perkins asked staff about the Staff condition number 2, "the Hurd Lane connection be completed by the applicant, prior to construction of Phase I". Perkins asked what level of completion are we requiring. Steve Amsbaugh stated that it was the consensus of the Staff review that a full public connection be made. That is consistent with the Town Comprehensive Plan. Perkins asked the applicant if that was the level of completion that they will comply with. Donaldson stated it was. Sue Railton stated that there is not a connection between the end of Hurd Lane and Eaglebend at :he present time. There is a piece of land there that is not available. Perkins stated that it is on their shoulders to address that. Railton stated that she did not think it met the connection between there to Eaglebend. Steve Amsbaugh stated that they were asking for a full connection and that includes the fifteen foot strip of private property that now exists. They need to work with those landowners to negotiate and consummate a full connection. Perkins stated that he feels it is very important for the capability for these people to go east. Railton stated that already there is a problem getting on to Highway 6 from Stonebridge Drive. Railton stated that unless that is resolved now, they don't want that connection. It will become a highway down Eaglebend Drive. Jack Hunn asked who's obligation is it to solve a traffic problem that may be generated by this or any other development. Is it the Town or is that a burden that the Town chooses to place upon the developers? Steve Amsbaugh stated that the identification of the potential for a traffic :.::ted issue was raised with the applicant and the request was made that they provide us with adequate information so that the Town Staff, public works, engineer, specifically, could be comfortable that the traffic generated by this proposal could be handled within the sphere of the Transportation Plan. In other words, it is an urban street, it gets to have urban problems in the long run. Are those urban problems acceptable is the issue your grappling with tonight. Town Staff has determined that by making the full connection, for example, you'll continue to split the transportation and distribute PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 16 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision Planned Unit Development Public Hearing— (cont) that the Hurd Lane Avon interchange as well as to Stonebridge Drive and that split will generally balance out in a fashion. that you see currently. The balancing effect would occur by the opening up of that connection. Rhoda Schneiderman asked how long the project was from east to west. Donaldson stated that it was about 1500 feet. Schneiderman asked why does the bus have to go all the way through this thing, why can't there be some kind of turn around at the far west end and have that be the bus stop. Donaldson stated that they had proposed that, but the Town staff, with their guidelines, couldn't accept it. Donaldson made some comments regarding the transportation plan and the bus system, but once again, his comments are very muffled. Buz Reynolds stated that in the site sections he is looking at, it shows that they plan on creating new grades that end up going into the thirty foot mean annual flood plain. Donaldson stated that those plans have been revised. There is no grading whatsoever inside that area. Railton asked if at times the 30 foot setback would be halfway up the bank. Donaldson stated that this was true. Railton asked why then in Eaglebend they made it always come to the top of the bank no matter what it was Jeff Spanel stated that for the most part in Eaglebend the river bank is steeper. He stated that a great deal of this property has a more gentle slope. He stated that the east and west end of this property is as steep as Eaglebend. Perkins asked if that was a 509/6 slope on the east end. Spanel's response is not clear. Perkins asked if there was a topo that locates all existing trees? Spanel stated that the topo is from an aerial survey that was done so the do have the location of all the trees. Perkins stated that he would like to see some documentation of the trees that would be maintained and the trees that would be proposed to be cut. Railton stated that a lot of the trees along their part of the river were rotting out and they were thinning them to preserve the good ones, but it would be a shame to cut down good ones and leave the crappy ones. Bill Sargis stated that approximately 28 trees, not forty would be cut and they only occur on the east end, not the west end and approximately 65 to 70 trees will be left on the east end. Mr. Sargis stated that the last time they were here they proposed 190 units and at that time the consensus was that density worked with the site. They now have a density of approximately 160 units, in actuality there is 155 units shown on the site plan. Regarding setbacks and snow storage, again, the engineering staff of the Town has told us that what they have is well within their criteria. He stated that they took all the Commission comments from the conceptual review and they have addressed every one of them. Approximately two thirds of the land of the entire developable site PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 17 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development, Public Hearing. (cont) is allocated to the townhouses, and they are talking about eight and a half units per acre and the balance of the condominiums which is 81, when blended together, does come out to less than 17 units per acre. The last time they were here they were proposing 20 units per acre. He stated that they were told that a park was important and they put a park in. Yet he thinks that the most important aspect of the site for amenities is the dedication of 3.5 acres of river front. Adhering to the 33 to 35% green space is very important too. Also there is an awful lot of contour change from east to west as well as north to south, so what you don't see here is a lot of character as well as a lot of height variations as it appears along the river. Sargis stated, as the developers, they are totally against Hurd Lane being a right-of-way. He thinks the master plan, the traffic plan was developed prior to any knowledge of what would occur in this general area. Given what is taking place in the Beaver Creek area, etc., Avon Road will only get worse, and it won't get worse specifically because of this project, but from what is occurring in Beaver Creek and both sides of Hiway 6, etc., and the natural growth in the Avon area, which will continue to occur. Sargis stated that, as far as elevations, once you get ten feet off the bank there is no visual of the river. Therefore, anything that occurs as far as building in the center of the site, whether there are structures in front or not, doesn't afford the opportunity to see the river. The townhomes appear where they do is that they have to adhere to the high water mark and 30 foot setback. The buildings are literally six to eight feet beyond that mark as well. Sargis further described how the townhouses would be situated, but his comments are not clear. Perkins asked where the elevation of Hiway 6 match the elevation of this site. He stated that what he is trying to establish is what this development would look like from Hiway 6 with these units at forty eight feet. Discussion followed on ,this. Perkins stated that a small scale site elevation of this looking from Hiway 6 across would be helpful. Railton stated that she is worried about cutting into that river bank. Perkins asked how much difference is there in floor elevation or starting elevation from east to west. Donaldson stated probably 30 feet of total undulation from the hi -&hest to the lowest. It varies. The buildings are meeting the grade. Perkins stated that is help5tl. Further discussion followed on the variations in the heights of the townhouses. Railton asked how close the next building is from the east end of this property. Donaldson stated it was 130 feet. Donaldson stated that Jeff Spanel has told them that Highway 6, is about the same elevation as the lower one third part of their property. The applicant asked for a few minutes to consider the Commission comments and what action they should take. Mark Donaldson stated that there seems to be a consensus that they are asking for too much density, but they believe otherwise and they would like to continue their negotiations. The idea of this being art emerging urban area in the Town of Avon is very clear in all of your documents. He stated r I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March I, 1994 Page 18 Lot 3, Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development., Public Hearin& (cont) that his client has spent $180,000.00 for him to come here and tell you about this proposal. They believe that they have relied upon the public documents that this Town has on record and every meeting that they have attended with Staff that runs this town and manages the assets of this town. They are trying to do what they can in a responsible fashion as far as contributing to the Town and bringing this site on line for development. If this site is not developed, they will not be able to achieve some of the linkages that are necessary for completion of the Town core areas as far as how they relate to the residential areas. In the last twelve years they have seen bed base lost in the Town Center. It has been lost to a post office, and to minor subdivisions. There has been two master plan changes in the last twelve years. They are here representing responsible applicants tonight, trying to develop a wide range of mix in residential units and they are absolutely confused. They have relied upon all the input of the last eight weeks and the client has attended meetings regularly. They have attended meetings with ten minutes notice. They have met with the fire department, public works, Staff, Planning and they have had input from neighboring property owners and the seller himself. They would like to request tabling tonight and they would like to request the Commission to meet with them again in this room within a week and have a worksession to get on every one of these issues so that they can get some direction. There is no direction on the Commission. You have conflicts about the documents you have adopted. They would like to find some consistency and bring this site to development. Bill Sargis stated that he is very confused. They came before this Commission several weeks ago and they thought they had a directive. They had a lot of good input. They took every single comment that the Commission made and not only incorporated it into the new submittal for the PUD, but after the submittal they worked very very diligently with the Staff and then went another ten miles to make things better, and so he is left a little confused. What concerns him more is the lack of total direction. He asked how they should perceive, and give him some sort of level of comfort to understand. He doesn't know where to go. There is no consistency on the Commission. The future of this site is totally in your hands. This project is viable and the stumbling block is the Committee that can't agree on anything. Chairman Perkins stated that he feels for his concerns and he understands his concerns. He thinks that he hit the nail on the head when he said the future of this site is in this Committee's !rands. That is a tremendous responsibility that they carry and as he has heard the statements tonight there is a pretty good level of consistency tonight even though it is not totally congruent with what you heard the first time you were here. He stated that they will continue to work with you on this. Sue Rsilton asked that some stakeouts of the southernmost points of the townhouse units on the riverside, so that they can, before the next meeting, walk the site and see what trees you identify that you will cut down. r1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 19 Lot 3. Nottingham Station Subdivision, Planned Unit Development Public Hearing. cont Sue Railton moved to table this item, Rhoda Schneiderman secrn.ided and the motion carried unanimously. Mountain Star. Subdivision. Filing 2, Planned Unit Development Amendment. Public Hearing Steve Amsbaugh stated that this is a public hearing before you tonight to consider the rezoning of 619.75 acres of land currently zoned Open Space, Landscaping and Drainage (OLD) to Planned Unit Development, (PUD) and amend the Mountain Star PUD to include this property. Amsbaugh pointed out on the vicinity map provided the 619.75 acres. He stated that the existing PUD was approved in January 1993 and that includes 88 single family lots with caretaker units. The acreage for the existing PUD is 683.94 acres. In October of 1993 the Forest Service issued a decision notice that would result in the conveyance of 626 acres of National Forest land to Mountain Star Limited Liability Company. This land exchange invrlved considerable environmental review and a Wildlife Mitigation Agreement and a Conservation Agreement to protect sensitive plant and animal species. As a result of that land exchange, Mountain Star Limited Liability Company has submitted an application requesting an amendment to their existing Mountain Star PUD. The amendment would include the addition of the 619 acres with the following specific uses: 1. Six additional residential lots (Lots 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94). 2. A new location of ranch central shown as Tract X. 3. 567 acres designated as open space designated on the map as Tract V and W. The remaining 7 acres., in excess of the 619 acres, Tract Y, would be dedicated to the town of Avon. Access to the site would be via Mountain Star Road, formerly called Buck Creek Road and also from Wildwood Road. No new access points would be provided for these six lots in this development proposal. Utilities would be provided the same as for the previous Mountain star development. The applicant needs to petition the Avon Metropolitan Water District for annexation within the district. Amsbaugh then reviewed the flip chart for this PUD, stating that there is the rezoning, the acceptance of the PUD development plan, which is the plan map, and the acceptance of the guidelines and standards. In terms of those guidelines and standards, they basically, in summary are consistent with the original Mountain Star PUD that was approved previously. Again, each lot would contain no more than one single family residence with a caretaker unit limited to 1800 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March I, 1994 Page 21 Mountain Star Subdivisign- ilinu 2, Planned Unit Development Amendment, Public Hearin cont 2. The PUD Plan and PUD Guidelines and Standards described above (including allowed uses, site access and development standards) be incorporated into and binding upon the PUD zone district designation for this parcel of land. 3. The property be annexed into the Avon Metropolitan Water District. 4. Access to the proposed equestrian area must be shown on the PUD Plan 5. Public trails and related parking areas must be shown on the PUD Plan. Rick Pylman stated that they are in total agreement with the Staff recommendations. Mr. Pylman provided a brief history of the Mountain Star project and how the addition of the additional 619.75 acres came about. Discussion followed on the rear setbacks of five feet on a couple lots Rick Pylman stated that in incorporating the six lots into the PUD, instead of writing a separate guidelines just for these six lots, they rewrote the entire set of guidelines to include these six lots. The lots that have a five foot setback were in the original subdivision. There was only one change made to the original subdivision and that is by bringing the ranch central site from one site to another, they took that couple acres and made it into an open space tract. He stated that there are two lots that are impacted by an existing 1 15KV power line that runs across there. They are working with Holy Cross to either relocate or bury those power lines. If they are not able to move the power line they will not go forward and develop those lots. Discussion followed on the dedication of Tract Y to the Town of Avon. Pylman stated that this tract is not part of the PUD. Steve Amsbaugh stated that this tract will remain OLD. Jack Hunn asked how visible the equestrian center would be from adjacent developments and the I- 70 corridor. Pylman stated that he does not believe it will be visible at all from the 1-70 corridor. It may be visible fiom the Gosshawk Townhomes and the Townhomes the "Town of Avon built. I lunn Mated that he would assume that if it is part of the development it would be an attractive and appropriate building, rather than a big metal building. Jack I-lunn asked why only six lots The applicant stated they wanted to make sure that they were near the existing property and when they took all the environmental issues and considerations it seemed to be the thing to do. Once you get below those six lots you get into much more exposed lots, less trees, etc. Also the Department of Wildlife was concerned about that being a major migration route for deer and elk. ^N r=� PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 20 Mountain Star Subdivision Filing 2 Planned Unit Development Amendment. Public Hearins(contl square feet in size. Tracts V and W would be open space Tract X would be ranch central. One specific use they are asking for is that Tract W would contain a summer use only equestrian center for the residents of Mountain Star Subdivision. Amsbaugh stated that the lots range in size from 2.99 acres proposed for these six new lots to 11.2.9 acres. Total open space dedication in this development would be 567 acres and Mountain Star Drive itself takes up about 16 and a half acres of this development proposal He stated that he believes that all of the development standards in terms of building height, building setbacks, maximum site coverage, minimum landscape area, maximum density, parking, signs and road standards are consistent with the original Mountain Star PUD Regarding Staff comments, during their analysis the have discovered two things that they have asked the applicant to provide in the further continuation of this PUD application First is the access to the summer use only equestrian center on Tract W actually be shown on the PUD map Rick Pylman stated that they are engineering that access at this time It will roughly follow the existing jeep road. Also, Staff would like to have an_v pedestrian trails shown on the PUD plan and also the trail head and related parking that was approved in the original PUD be shown along Mountain Star Drive The applicant has agreed to put these things on the final PUD map Amsbaugh stated that unless the Commission has any specific questions, he would waive the reading of the criteria and findings. Staffgenerally feels that this rezoning application does comply with the rezoning requirements as well as with the Comprehensive Plan. and the other codes and Regulations of the Town of Avon. Statf would recommend Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the rezoning of 619 75 acres form OLD to PUD and amend the existing Mountain Star PUD by incorporating an additional 619.75 acres into that PUD with the following findings and conditions FINDINGS 1. The rezoning is justified due to the changing character of the area fhe rezoning is consistent with the Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan 3 The proposed use is compatible and complimentary to the surrounding area and uses CONDITIONS I The amendment to the Mountain Star PUD will be incorporated into the existing Mountain Star PUD. Subdivision of this land will be identified as Mountain Star Filing Number 2. A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March I, 1994 Page 22 Mountain Star Subdivision, Filink_? Planned Unit Development Amendment, Public Hearing. (cont) Buz Reynolds asked if there were any riding trails etc., in the equestrian tract. Pylman stated that there may be some hiking trails but not riding trails Rhoda Schneiderman asked about fencing at the equestrian center. Pylman stated that any fencing that goes up would have to be a lay down or drop design that only goes up in the summer. Jack Hunn moved to grant approval for Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94 -2, Recommending To The Avon Town Council Approval Of A Rezoning Of 619.75 Acres Of Land Currently Zoned Open Space, Landscaping And Drainage., To Planned Unit Development And Amend The Mountain Star Planned Unit Development To Include This Property, which includes the Findings I, 2, and 3, and the conditions as recommended by Staff Sue Railton seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Lot 63, Block I, Wildridge Subdivision, Guida Duplex, Final Design Review Mary Holden stated that this is a one acre lot with slopes ranging from 2440%. It is a three level duplex. Unit A consists of 3096 square feet and Unit B consists of 2438 square feet. There is one wood burning fireplace being proposed, which the applicant must pay a fee to secure it. Site lighting will be provided via wall lights on the building at all exterior doors. Materials will consist of cedar shingles, I x 8 rough sawn shiplap and stucco. She stated that the color rendering does not match the colors indicated in the application. The landscaping will include aspens, Russian olives, ponderosa pines, shrubs and perennials. Holden stated that the applicant is proposing a concrete driveway and Staff is requiring them to provide an asphalt apron where it ties into the road. A culvert needs to be added. The retaining walls need to be removed from the setbacks, both side and front yard, or apply for a variance. True limits of site disturbance must be shown on the grading plan and retaining walls over 4 feet in height must be designed by an engineer. This application does meet the design review considerations listed in the Staff report Staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission approval with the following conditions I. That the asphalt apron be provided where the driveway ties into the road 2. A culvert be added The building height not exceed 35'. Al PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 23 Lot 63, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision. Guida Duplex, Final Design Review. (cont) 4. The retaining walls be removed from the setbacks, or a variance applied for. 5. Meters be placed on the building. 6. All flashing, flues and vents have a finisheti surface. Sue Railton stepped down as a voting member of the Commission, due to a conflict of interest. John Railton, representing Mike and Liisa Guide, stated that they have pushed the building a little further down on the site and thus reduced the setback issues and giving them more car parking space in front of the building. It is a difficult site with tl?e steep grades. If they were to push the building any further down the site there would be problems with getting the driveway to work. He stated that they have applied for a variance, which is scheduled for the ne:. meeting. The reason for the variance is so that they can build a retaining wall that will allow them to provide a more adequate driveway and more adequate parking along side of the building. He stated that they have received a letter from the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District indicating that they have no use for the easement that exists and have no difficulty at all with the variance request. Railton stated that one comment made at the conceptual review was regarding the building height exceeding the 35' lir-*' That had to do with the fact that the roof pitch was 7-I/2 to 12. The rest of Mr. Railton's comm.;nts are not clear due to the Guida baby making noises. Mr. Railton stated that they have introduced some additional material which changes the texture of the siding. They have made the sloped connecting elements at the front porches horizontal siding and the other vertical siding. Again, this comment is not clear due to the noises from the Guida's baby. The other material introduced is stucco on the fireplace and stucco walls and also stucco base around the lower part of the building. They would like to make the stucco the same color and the same texture as the Hazard residence. Buz Reynolds stated that he likes the house, but he has a couple questions. He asked what they plan to do with the detail above th(; window. Railton stated that it is like a header. He explained how it would work. Reynolds stated that about 900/9 of the buildings seem to have more overhangs on there and he asked if they have a reason for them going flush. Railton stated that he thinks it is more in common with the kind of architecture of the house. Reynolds stated that he did not mind bringing the building off the ground, but landscape under there so that it kind of blends up with what is existing. It wouid make the building look even nicer. Railton stated that they would probably use a natural sort of grass. w PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 24 Lot 63. Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Guida Duplex, Final Desivn.Review. (contl Jack Hunn asked about the colors. Railton provided some colors. The siding will be a greenish gray and the stucco will be the same color as the Hazard residence next door. The Commission stated that they would Gke to see samples of the colors. Hunn asked about the exterior lighting. Railton explained where the lighting would be. Hunn asked about the light fixtures. He asked the applicant to provide a fixture cut sheet when they bring the colors back. Discussion followed on the soffit finish on the cantilevered portions and the finish on the pillars that support the cantilevered elements. Hunn stated that maneuvering on the site was a concern that he had and he doesn't see any way to solve it, and because of the cul-de-sac and they are backing into a low traffic area he thinks the can be comfortable with it. The other concern he has is the amount of snow storage shown and the techniques that would have to be used to clear the snow from 'he driveway. There is very limited snow storage. Discussion followed but none of it is clear due to several people talking at the same time. Hunn asked where the sewer tap would be and what kind of site disturbance would there be. Railton stated that it would be in close proximity to the road or in the road. Hunn asked if the landscaping is supported by an automatic irrigation system. The applicant stated it was. Henry Vest asked about the venting. Railton described the scissor truss roofing and how it works. Discussion followed on the half rounds on the garages, but with several people talking at the same time the discussion is not clear. Rhoda Schneiderman stated she liked the house. She asked what the ground finishes are where ever there is a door. Railton stated they would be paved patio areas. Schneiderman stated that she is not comfortable with the bare look around those projected pieces. She feels that they need something around the posts and the landscape plan doesn't show anything. She stated that she could not approve this landscape plan without something being shown and she does not think grasses would do it. It needs some sort of shrub to soften it. Considerable discussion followed. Schneiderman suggested a natural type of shrub that would grow there anyway had they not excavated it, i.e. sage. John Perkins stated that he thinks it is a delightful house. He commended them on the design and thanked them for providing the model. Discuss;01-1 %: owaa on the garage door, the possible use of another color other than the same gray on the Hazard house and the limit of construction. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to approve final design of Lot 63, Block I with the following conditions: 1. Where the driveway ties into Fox Lane, an asphalt apron be provided instead of concrete. 04 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 27 Lot 53. Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision. Player Duplex, Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Buz Reynolds stated that the drive for the west unit looks like it will be a pretty substantial drive, like 11 or 12 feet. Riden stated it is about 8. He stated that they would use the area to the sides of the drive to use for snow storage. Reynolds stated that keeping 4% within the right-of-way, it looks like there will be a substantial drive. Reynolds stated that he liked the concept of stepping it down. Jack Hunn stated that he is concerned about some of the open arches, as this is a complicated building. He stated that he would like to see a model and how it sits on the site. One of the arches is quite tall and the others are more minor and he is concerned on how they will look. He stated that he is concerned with both garages. Two of the walls that will be visible from adjacent properties are very blank walls. Hunn stated that he likes the solution on the site. He thinks there is a bit of a challenge getting the driveway grades to work. Hunn asked what the width of the driveway to the lower unit would be. Riden stated that it is 16 at the garage doors and drops to 12 ft. Staff stated that the minimum allowed is 14. John Perkins stated that he thinks it is a very creative solution. He also thinks a model would be beneficial. Henry Vest stated that he likes the building. Discussion followed on the vents and the material to be used. Vest asked if the roof pitches vary. Riden stated that they vary from a 3, 5, and 8/12 pitches, depending on its location. Vest asked about the stucco around the windows and doors. Riden stated that they are doing stucco banding in certain areas. He pointed out on the elevations where it would be and how it would be applied. Rhoda Schneiderman stated that in general she thinks it is a creative solution. The only problems she has with it are the west elevation where it kind of looks like a fourplex. Everything is exactly the same. She stated that they need to add some variations to this side. Regarding the north elevation, what is this big chalet style entry way that is not trimmed out the same way. Riden stated that she is seeing this in sections and if they would put the garage in front of this particular elevation you would not see anything. She stated that the only other concern she has are the high arches. The low ones are interesting, Riden stated that the highest one would be only 7 or 8 feet. Schneiderman stated that when the landscape plan comes back for final the applicant needs to include a legend on the landscape plan showing the required minimums of 2" caliper for the aspens and russian olives and five gallon minimums for the rest of the shrubs. Sue Railton stated that she has no problem with it. She asked, since the arches go right through, under the building, what will be put under them? Will they use gravel and walks etc., under there. Riden stated that he thinks that there will be enough exposure there that they can get some things to grow there. a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 25 Lot 63, Block 1. Wildridge Subdivision, Guida Duplex, Final Design Review. (cont) 2 A culvert be added under the driveway at the entrance to the lot. 3. The building height not exceed 35'. 4. The rock and concrete retaining walls on the south portion of the site be moved out of the sideyard setback and easement or a variance granted for their location. 5. Meters be placed on the building. 6. All flashings, flues and vents must have a finished surface to match the building. Additional landscaping of the natural variety including sage and natural grasses be placed in close proximity to the supports on the lower four corners of the house. 8. All color samples, including stucco samples be brought back to this Board for approval. 9. Cut sheets for the light fixtures be brought back along with the color samples. Jack Hunn seconded. Hunn asked that limits of construction shown on the site plan be added to the conditions. The motion carried unanimously. Lot 53. Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision. Player Duplex. Conceptual Design Review Mary Holden stated that the lot is 1.65 acres and slopes to the west at approximately 24-28%. This is for a duplex that will contain two levels and stand approximately 28 to 32 feet. It will be a total of 5500 square feet between the two. Building orientation is to the south. Materials proposed are asphalt shingles, and cedar bevel lap and stucco. The landscape plan will include spruce, aspen, russian olive, juniper and potentilla. Staff comments are as follows. 1. An accurate grading plan, on a certified topography of the site, showing true limits of disturbance, all easements and the limit of developable land must be submitted for final design review. 2. The building appears to abut the setbacks and overhangs may not extend into the setbacks. 3. Snow storage needs to be shown. io PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 26 Lot 53, Block 4. Wildridge Subdivision_ Plaver Duplex Conceptual Desi3,m Review, (cont] 4. Retaining walls over 4' in height need to be designed by an engineer. 5. The boulder retaining wall needs to be shown on the site plan. 6. Type of driveway needs to be indicated. 7. Landscaping should be located out of snow storage areas and at least 4' from the building. 8. Gas or wood burning fireplace needs to be indicated. 9. The east elevation needs to be submitted for final design review. 10. The landscape plan should meet the Town of Avon requirements. 11. Building lighting needs to be :effected. 12. Clarify whether the arches are open underneath. 13. Indicate the type of material and color for garage doors. Holden stated that as a conceptual design review, Staff has no formal recommendation. Steve Riden, representing the applicant stated that they are really just interested in the comments from the Commission. He stated that he feels that they can accommodate the Staffs comments. Regarding the design comments, the east elevation stated that it would be a very brief elevation since it drops off very quickly over that way., and regarding number 7, the materials for the garage door would be a T & G cedar garage door in a natural tone. They are staying with strictly natural tones. Mary Holden stated that she has put together the elevation on the wall. Chairman Perkins asked how long is the building. Riden stated that they are keeping it long and narrow as you can see from the site plan, basically following the contours down as you go. The idea being that it allows better access via the grading to the garage and separating the garages, eliminating larger masses of building by keeping the buildings in smaller scale, so they don't have large structures individually, they have smaller masses broken up by the archways, by the connections and the detail used. To do that they basically stretched the plan out and also to eliminate some of the additional costs for stretching the plan out they plan to span between foundations and that is where they have created the archways underneath. Some are capable of walking through and some of them are not. Al OWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 28 Lot 53, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision, Player Duplex. Conceptual Design Review. (cont) Chairman Perkins stated that those were the Commission comments and as a conceptual review, no action would be taken at this time. He asked the applicant to bring color samples and roof samples at the final design review. Lot 2 Block 5. Wildridwe Subdivision Spiegel Duplex. Conditions of Approval Mary Holden stated that the Commission requested the applicant bring back the colors for the doors, railings and balconies and also bring a sample of the roof material for approval when final design approval was given at the December 7, 1993 meeting for various modifications. She provided the samples for the Commission to review. Discussion followed on how this proposal will blend in with the other duplex on this lot, and also on the roofing material. Henry Vest moved to approve the colors and roofing material as submitted. Sue Railton seconded. Jack Hunn stated that he has some real concerns about this. He stated that it is a matched set of duplexes, one design, side by side, and he considers them a pair of buildings and they should have the same roof, even though the first one has the wrong color of roof. Considerable discussion followed regarding this matter. Chairman Perkins called for a vote on the motion on the table. The motion carried with Jack Hunn voting nay. Lot 63, Block 2 Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Seasons at Avon. Modifications. Since no representative for the Seasons at Avon was present at this time, Chairman Perkins asked for a motion to table this item. Jack Hunn so moved, Rhoda Schneiderman seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Other Business Buz Reynolds stated that the lights that are on Valley Wide were supposed to be down lights, and the two lights that were installed at the Colorado IMountain Express are spotlights and there is no reason to have to stare into that when you drive up the hill. Also, when the Commission gave approval to the power company to put in their new poles, they said they would take a set of poles out going up Metcalf Road and they have not done it yet. M0 aw+ PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 29 Other Business (cont) The Recording Secretary stated that there was another resolution presented for consideration regarding Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, PUD, which was approved at the February 15, 1994 meeting. Henry Vest moved to grant approval to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 94-1, Recommending To The Avon Town Council That Lot 3, Block 3, Benchmark At Beaver Creek Subdivision, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado Be Rezoned From Residential High Density Commercial To Planned Unit Development and Establishing A PUD Development Plan and Development Standards Related Thereto. Jack Hunn seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Rhoda Schneiderman asked if the Staff had checked out the color on Valley Wid•-'s building. Mary Holden stated that they had and they would be coming back before the Commission. Rhoda Schneiderman moved to adjourn, Buz Reynolds seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 11:20 PM. Respectfully submitted, Charlette Pascuzzi Recording Secretary PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES March 1, 1994 Page 30