Loading...
PZC Minutes 032007Towyn of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2007 VONAvon Town Council Chambers R A p o Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road - WORK SESSION - (5:OOpm - 5:30pm) Discussion of regular meeting agenda items. - REGULAR MEETING - Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:40 pm. H. Roll Call All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Lane. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no additions or amendments to the Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda Approval of the March 6, 2007 Meeting Minutes with corrections to the adjournment vote and Walkin the Dog access chain. Commissioner Green motioned to approve the Consent Agenda and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Struve. All Commissioners were in favor and motion passed unanimously with a 4-0 vote. Commissioner Goulding abstained due to his absence at the meeting. VI. PUD Amendment — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Property Location: Buck Creek PUD, Buck Creek Road, Applicant: Steve Isom /Owner: Oscar Tang Description: The applicant, Steve Isom, representing the owner of the property, Tanavon Corp, is proposing to amend the Cottonwood PUD Plan and Guide documents; and to further subdivide the existing Wildwood Subdivision, Lots 1, 2, and 3, into a total of five (5) lots and two tracts. The property is located on the northeast corner of Nottingham and Buck Creek Roads, is presently zoned as the Cottonwood PUD, and is platted as the Wildwood Resorts Subdivision. The proposed amendments to the existing plat and PUD are focused primarily on re -subdividing the Wildwood Subdivision from three (3) developable lots into four (4); to introduce a new, optional Montessori School use on the subject property; and to reallocate the existing, allowed uses amongst the newly subdivided lots. This application has been tabled from two prior meetings. Matt Gennett revealed to the Commission the Applicant's request to table this application with conditions from the Commission. Commissioner Struve questioned if there was any precedent to assess additional development staff costs and resources, and requested a proposal from Staff of the charges at the next Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Matt Gennett responded affirmatively. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING There were no comments made by the public. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Green commented that he wanted to make sure the purpose of tabling this project was known. Commissioner Green continued that this application was a deniable application particularly when reviewing the 16 staff comments, residential density overruns, under parking issues, concerns with traffic impacts to Nottingham Road as a result of this PUD, questions as to the adequacy of public services, issues of water rights, wetland issues, Buck Creek drain pipe issues, and comments from the applicant of their lack of belief of the water flooding study being done, all point to this application as inadequate and outright deniable. Commissioner Green continued with purpose of tabling must be presented to the applicant to make sure that subsequent presentations are not what we are seeing now. Matt Gennett responded that Staff's Report Section I recommended denial of this application subject to the criteria and findings in Sections 6 and 7. However, the applicant's representative group recently suggested that they would be pursuing another avenue for presentation and found that the application was not ready to be heard today and thus requested the tabling. Commissioner Struve motioned to table, with prejudice, Item VI, PUD Amendment, Property Location: Buck Creek PUD, Buck Creek Road, with all the conditions stated and all the conditions stated by Commissioner Green and if that prejudice is not met, it can not be brought before the Commission. Commissioner Goulding seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously with a 5-0 vote. VII. Final Design Review - Residential Duplex - CONTINUED Property Location: Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5178 Longsun Lane Applicant: Scott & Adrienne Czarniak / Owner: Bernard & Lynn White Description: Final Design review to add one additional unit onto an existing Longsun Lane single-family residence to create a duplex residence. There was a Sketch Design review which took place at the January 2, 2007 Commission meeting. The design has changed slightly since first review. This review was tabled from the March 6, 2007 meeting at the applicant's request. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report to the Commission. Bobby Ladd, project architect, approached the podium to comment on changes made and began with the connection between the units, relocation of utilities, new roof connection, new roof line, new trees around the front of the existing residence, landscaping around the new residence to maintain a consistent landscape plan, square footage was decreased at the owner's request, change of massing on the east side, gable now symmetrical, and, colors and materials are all proposed to match existing residence. Commissioner Struve questioned the roofline. Commissioner Green commented that the two residences needed connection with the roofline that drives the roof back into itself and that a sense of unity could be accomplished by the roofline. Commissioner Goulding commented that the Applicant was trying to create a single mass structure with two dwelling units; the photo realistic showed only one perspective and the depth couldn't be judged, it could be 30 feet from its perspective. The connector had too many unknowns to make a decision. Both Commissioner Goulding and Commissioner Green commented that a three dimension model would be beneficial. Commissioner Goulding commented that this addition needs to meet the current guidelines with two materials for siding and not those from the original construction. Commissioner Smith voiced that the stucco and cedar trim was sufficient. Commissioner Foster remarked that there were no problems with materials as they stand and more insight was needed for the connection visually. Commissioner Goulding commented that this application was not going to be the last addition to a home in Avon and that the original home needed be in good repair. Commissioner Goulding motioned to table Item VII, Final Design Review - Residential Duplex, Property Location: Lot 57, Block 4, Wildridge Subdivision / 5178 Longsun Lane. The Applicant will need to illustrate to the Commission that this connection point will work or it needs to be bolstered as the connection point was pivotal and critical point to this approval. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with a 5 — 0 vote. VIII. Final Design - Commercial Timeshare Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane Applicant: Aleksandr Sheykhet / Owner.' East West Resort Development XIV LOP LLP Description: The applicant is proposing a Sketch Design application for the "Timeshare West" building in the Riverfront Subdivision. The building would contain 34 timeshare units (39 at build out) which are two bedroom units each with the ability to have lock -off units. At the ground level, there is approximately 6,000 square feet of shell space to be commercial/retail and timeshare sales. First design review for this project took place at the December 19, 2006 Commission meeting. Matt Pielsticker presented the Staff Report. Mr. Pielsticker revealed some clarification that there would be 78 keys and 52 dwelling units, with 34 timeshare units at build out with 6000 square feet of commercial space and the sales space will account for 5 additional timeshare units at a later date. Commissioner Goulding questioned how the keys translate to parking. Mr. Pielsticker remarked that parking was a totally different calculation and that the build out numbers calculated the parking numbers. Aleksandr Sheykhet, applicant, presented the project to the Commission and began with the dwelling units and parking, showed elevations, presented the revisions to the project beginning with the entry, pedestrian plaza, maintaining of the view corridors, flat roofs are usable and presentable, floor plans did not changed significantly, and the retail/plaza was presented. Material boards were displayed for the Commission. Commissioner Green was concerned with a harmonious relationship with this project and the hotel. Commissioner Foster questioned the roof overhang and encroachment on the easement and did not want a precedent set. Commissioner Struve questioned the easement and its dedication to the Town. Applicant was prepared to deal with the encroachment should it become a condition. Commissioner Struve questioned the roof materials. Mr. Sheykhet replied that there were two roof materials and described them. Commissioner Green questioned if both materials were displayed and received a negative reply. It was revealed that the mock up would present all of the materials and their colors accurately. Commissioner Struv patterned pavers are east and west sides. continued with the east side landscaping or plantings in courtyard, preferred, sought definition of native shrubs, and more vertical relief on the Commissioner Goulding remarked on the north side entry as unappealing or uninviting, the massing does not have much appeal where the hotel next door was more interesting in its massing, this building does not set a design standard for the Town of Avon and commented that the hotel does set a standard; massing, finishes and elements do not bring interest to the building. Commissioner Green agreed that the Westin Hotel was good architecture and the Timeshare Building does not compliment the hotel. Commissioner Smith remarked that the entry had come a long way but it was still too small, does not invite people to enter the building. Commissioner Green remarked that there was a lack of detail and such detail adds richness to the project. Andy Gunion, East West Resorts, approached the podium to mention the design review committee for the project. Commissioner Green suggested further design embellishment. Commissioner Goulding motioned to table Item VIII, Final Design - Commercial Timeshare, Property Location: Lot 3, Riverfront Subdivision / 218 Riverfront Lane, with direction to study the detailing to add interest and raise the level of the building in both a pedestrian and off site perspective. Commissioner Struve seconded. All Commissioners were in favor and the motion passed unanimously. IX. Minor Project - Landscape Plan Property Location: Tract N, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Applicant/Owner Ronald Siebert, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Description: The building for UV water treatment was approved on June 20, 2006 subject to conditions. The building has since been constructed on the south side of the main treatment facility. This is a follow-up review of a landscape plan, pursuant to the approval which required a Landscape Plan be submitted and approved prior to TCO or CO of the building. Matt Pielsticker offered the Staff Report. Commissioner Green questioned where and when the landscaping was to be provided. Commissioner Smith recalled that, in the previous approval meeting, the berm and area from the bike path and the fence was to be landscaped to block the view of the building from the bike path and the river. Commissioner Foster said that this area was discussed but in looking at Minutes, a landscape plan would be provided and approved but it did not specify where the landscaping would take place. Commissioner Goulding commented that the Commission had talked about that the fence did not meet current agreement, so how was the fence to be addressed; as well as the landscape — how was it going to be maintained and irrigated, what side of the fence does it go on; where does it go, utilities are in and around the area that really limits the ability to put trees there. Commissioner Goulding continued that there was a lot of discussion that the Commission was sensitive to the appearance of the fence and all of the improvements behind the fence, both from the bike path and Highway 6, but then it was said that in order to move forward in a good faith effort, it wouldn't be tied to the issuance of a building permit, because of the timing, we will wait until we get presented with a landscape plan and tie it to the building permit. Ronald Siebert, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, approached the podium to comment that they did not address the berm from the fence down to the edge of the river because there is an easement issued by the Water and Sanitation District to the Town of Avon that stipulated very clearly that the area in question was the Town of Avon's responsibility to landscape and maintain. Mr. Siebert continued that there was a letter to Mayor Yoder and Rick Sackbauer, on April 22"d, when this was first issued, then there was legalese of it following the last few pages dated September 20th are two letters concerning the appearance of the berm in question. Page 2B of the Deed of Easement, top of page, showed the responsibility of the area in question: "(b) Town agrees to provide for the installation, at its expense, of an irrigation system and landscaping adjacent to the bike trial, which is the subject of this easement. The irrigated landscaping shall extend from Owner's fence adjacent to the bike path to the high water line of the Eagle River. The irrigation system shall be installed so as to be a part of Owner's existing irrigation system and shall be maintained by Owner. The Town shall maintain the landscaping in a manner similar to Town's maintenance of its other landscaping." Mr. Siebert continued that original landscaping was provided, however, when the bike path was installed, the landscaping was removed. Commissioner Goulding commented that the intent was to screen the property. Mr. Siebert commented that on the north side of the berm was filled with aspens and cottonwoods. Mr. Siebert commented that the District was willing to entertain the idea of trees on the easement and are concerned that spruce may not grow on the easement. Pending discussion with a profession landscape architect and if spruce will grow in the noted location, with how it could thrive, additional two trees of both types could be provided. Commissioner Goulding motioned to approve IX, Minor Project - Landscape Plan, Property Location: Tract N, Block 3, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, as the condition to the 6/20/06 approval as it relates to landscaping with the following conditions: the Water District will provide and install 4 aspens and 4 spruces trees and some associated shrubs along the bike path, in front of the building with the intent to screen the new UV building and that plan should be submitted to staff and then will work with the Town of Avon to work out the maintenance agreement and the actual construction and the installation should not be unreasonably burdensome on the applicant. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. Additionally, shrubs to be negotiated and approved by staff. The motion passed with a 5-0 vote as all Commissioners were in favor, X. Sketch Design - Single -Family Residential Property Location: Lot 4, Western Sage PUD, Wildridge Subdivision Applicant: John G. Martin /Owner: Ted Leach, Western Sage Partners, LLC Description: Sketch Design for a Single -Family residence of approximately 4,000 square feet in the Western Sage PUD. Lot is accessed from private drive off cul-de-sac on Longsun Lane. The Design features a 2 -car garage, European style design with wood siding, stucco/stone siding, and large simple roof form. Jared Barnes presented Staff's report to the Commission. Commissioner Green questioned the driveway and asked if it is approved as such with a response that it was a private road. Commissioner Smith questioned if one home has been built and received an affirmative answer. Jeff Manley, architect, spoke from the podium that all homes to be built would be identical to give an enclave look. Commissioner Green asked what was driving the square footage and the PUD limited the footage. Mr. Manley continued that the driveway was intentionally wide, site disturbance was minimized, and elevations were minimized for the disturbance to the neighbors. Commissioner Struve had difficulty with 4 identical houses in the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Green commented that precedence existed with previous applicants negative motions on identical homes. Mr. Manley remarked that the PUD was created with identical homes in mind and the Commission responded that at no time were identical structures discussed. Property owners in the audience were pleased that the design presented was appreciated and the feel of mountain chalet was the direction, perhaps an entryway could be different, dormers were changed, would like to keep the heavy timber beam and commented the desire for wood shingles. The Commission responded that with wildfire mitigation, wood shakes were not permitted. Commissioner Green commented that a landscaping plan needed to be demonstrated, suggested an abundant plan. Commissioner Struve commented on the shingles and suggested a look alike. Commissioner Goulding voiced good massing, landscaping site issues, and chimney could use rock. XI. Other Business No other business was discussed. XII. Adjourn Commissioner Green motioned to adjourn with Commissioner Foster seconding the motion. All Commissioners were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Ruth Weiss Recording Secretary APPROVED: Terry Smith Vice Chairman Phil Struve Secretary