Loading...
PZC Minutes 080508Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2008 Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public Avon Municipal Building / 400 Benchmark Road WORK SESSION (5:OOpm — 5:30pm) Description: Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public. REGULAR MEETING I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:35 pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda Items VI -A and IX were moved to the Consent Agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest There were no conflicts of interest to disclose. V. Consent Agenda ® Approval of the July 15, 2008 Meeting Minutes Item VI -A, The Gates, Sign Design ® Item IX, Minor Project, Courtyard Villas Design Modifications Commissioner Green moved to approve the consent agenda, as amended, and Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 6-0 vote. Commissioner Lane abstained due to his absence from the July 15, 2008 meeting. VI. Sign Design Application A. The Gates Property Location: Lot 1, Chateau St. Claire / 38390 Highways 6 & 24 Applicant: Michael Matthews / Owner. CSC Land, LLC Description: A building mounted sign made of PVC with Acrylic Cutouts. The sign measures approximately 40 square feet in area. Discussion: Discussed during Work Session. Action: Approved on the Consent Agenda. B. Bel Lago Property Location: Lot 12, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek / 540 West Beaver Creek Blvd Applicant: Daniel Ritch /Owner. Bel Lago, LLC Description: A Sign Application for an illuminated building mounted sign and a ground mounted project entry sign for a multi family residential property. The monument sign will be made of Colorado Sandstone and will be landscaped around the base. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented staff's report to the Planning Commission. The building mounted sign fails to comply with the nature of similar and neighboring improvements. Jared discussed the lighting proposed for the two signs, and recommends that a low wattage bulb be provided to staff prior to the installation of the project entrance sign. Daniel Ritch approached the podium and discussed his strong desire to keep the stone sign after the efforts to find the specific color and size of stone. He offered a suggestion for the building mounted "B" sign; to either replace with a sandstone stone with a sandblasted emblem, or to remove this sign altogether if that were the desire of the Commission. Commissioner Green questioned which stone was being proposed and its height above grade. Commissioner Evans clarified from the Staff Report that it would stand approximately 6' 6" above the finished grade. The Commissioners discussed the building mounted sign and if it was appropriate for this land use on this property. Commissioner Goulding felt that this could be considered branding, and Commissioner Roubos was in agreement. Commissioner Goulding questioned the fire departments requirements and if the 540 address portion would be visible at night. Daniel said that he would make sure it was compliant. Commissioner Prince asked if this was going to be a short term rental property, and the applicant responded negatively. Commissioners Green and Lane were in general agreement with the comments already made. Action: Commissioner Goulding moved to approve with staff conditions and findings as listed in the report. He clarified his motion with reference to condition #2; a 25 watt bulb will be utilized, and the applicant will work with Staff to determine if this is an acceptable light level. If not suitable it may be increased up to 50 watts. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion and the motion passes with a 6-1 vote. VII. Sketch Design Review — Perdzock Single -Family Residence Property Location: Lot 83, Block 4, Wildridge / 5729 Wildridge Road East Applicant: Kathy Langenwalter, Peel/Langenwalter Architects / Owner: John & Janet Perdzock Description: Sketch design review of a single family residence on Wildridge Road East. The structure totals approximately 4,300 square feet excluding the garage area. Exterior building materials include: stucco and stone veneer siding. Discussion: Jared Barnes presented Staff's report to the Commission. Jared pointed out an apparent conflict with the 20' grade requirements. He continued to explain that roof overhangs, particularly on the east side of the property, must be removed from the setback prior to a final design submittal. The Design Guidelines also require a minimum of two (2) building materials per building elevation, and more indigenous materials would benefit this design. Commissioner Struve questioned if we typically review a project staging plan at sketch design review. Jared responded that we do not require staging at sketch. Kathy Langenwalter approached the podium to address the concerns brought up in Staff's report. The setback issue will be addressed, as well as meeting the grade requirements for the driveway. Kathy distributed photographs of the neighboring single-family homes to address the concerns with a lack of building materials. Commissioner Roubos questioned the need for a perpendicular driveway, and Commissioner Green clarified the need to look both ways before exiting the property. Commissioner Green felt that the limits of disturbance pulled towards the house was a positive aspect of the design. He expressed a concern with how vehicles will turnaround out of the garage. Kathy said that it can be done with a two point turn and is similar to neighboring driveways. Commissioner Green also expressed a concern with the materials shown on the elevations and a general lack of variety for the larger wall planes. Commissioner Lane agreed with Green's comments, and questioned the belly band material and how it may not provide enough contrast. Commissioner Prince felt that the amount of stucco was excessive, and the belly band material should be explored further. Commissioner Roubos felt that stucco was acceptable as long as the color were to be earth tone. Commissioner Struve was somewhat concerned with the driveway turnaround space, and apparent lack thereof. He felt that the stucco nature of the architecture was acceptable given the other improvements in the area. Commissioner Goulding pointed out the fact that the lot is zoned two units and that the parking and loading for an additional future dwelling unit is compromised with this design. He is concerned with the driveway design, and maneuverability leaving and entering the property. Todd continued to discuss the nature of the stone as it was applied to the elevations. He felt that a wrapped wainscot may be necessary to help ground the building and feel like a foundation. Todd reiterated the previous landscaping comment and the desire for a varied, developed landscape plan at final design. Commissioner Evans felt that color may be Whether or not more stone was necessary experience was pointed out as an example. Action: No action necessary. able to help break up the elevations further. seemed to be the question, and the entry VIII. Minor Design Application — Ruggs Benedict Exterior Changes Property Location: Lot 32, Block 1, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 810 Nottingham Road Applicant: Mark Donaldson / Owner: Ester Wolff Trust Description: The applicant is proposing exterior modifications to the existing Ruggs Benedict building. The proposed changes include architectural enhancements to the building entrances, a complete repaint of all elevations, windows on the south and east elevations, and new roof structures with stone base supports. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker presented Staff's Report, highlighting the removal of the roof element at the southeast corner of the building. Commissioner Goulding asked staff if variances have been approved in the past for modifications to an existing building. Staff responded that we have not. Roger Benedict explained the motivation for the proposed changes, including the future acquisition of the property, moving of warehouse facilities, and competition. Mark Donaldson presented the application and existing encroachments into the setback. He proposed the alternative option incase the proposed encroachment is not allowed. Commissioner Evans asked about the motivation for removing the Pine Tree. Mark Donaldson stated how overbearing it is. Commissioner Struve asked if the tree could be moved. Mark stated that it would be better to just remove the tree than move it. Commissioner Evans asked about the wood trim on the windows on the South Elevation. Mark Donaldson stated that the details on the elevations needed to be improved and the use of wood on each elevation will help improve the building. Commissioner Goulding asked if the illuminated sign will remain. Mark stated that a pending Master Sign Program will be brought forward soon. Commissioner Evans clarified that the two of the Aspen trees will be removed. The trash enclosure is to also be removed and Commissioner Evans wanted to know the future plans for trash. Mark responded that the trees will be removed and that future trash will be dealt with inside the building and that there will no longer be a need for exterior trash storage. Commissioner Green asked about the indentation of elements on the East and South elevations. Mark Donaldson stated that the Stone Veneer is all in the same plane and the scoring is slightly recessed. Commissioner Roubos questioned the remaining stone veneer columns. She stated that the remaining pieces made the building appear unfinished and would prefer if they were removed. Commissioner Evans questioned the North Elevations paint colors. Mark Donaldson responded that the use of the paint colors will help create a "turning the corner" affect from the adjoining elevations as seen on all other elevations. Commissioner Goulding thanked the applicant for putting time and money into beautifying this building. He asked that if the plans can stagger the heights of the proposed trees. Commissioner Struve asked that when the old tree is removed, the new trees be planted as soon as the old trees are removed. Commissioner Prince agreed with the applicant about the need for the tree removal. He stated that he likes the proposal as presented. Commissioner Lane stated that he has issues understanding the column offset. Mark Donaldson stated that it really draws its need from the retail need and understands that it is not a typical mass. Commissioner Green stated that he does not support painted brick. Commissioner Evans clarified that the original plans are off the table so it appears that the alternative drawings are what are being proposed. He also stated that he would have supported a variance request for the third tile column to extend into the setbacks. Action: Commissioner Goulding moved to approve sheets A1.2A and A2.1A and Staff Recommendations and Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. It passed with a 5-2 vote. IX. Minor Project Application - Residential Courtyard Villas Property Location: Lots 12 & 13, Block 3, Wildridge / 4121 & 4123 Little Point Applicant: Michael Hazard, Morter Architects / Owner- Advanced Home Technologies Description: An application for modifications to an approved Final Design for two lots on Little Point. The modifications include changes to material locations, window and door locations, modified entries for each unit, and modified roof plans. Discussion: Discussed during Work Session. Action: Approved on Consent Agenda. X. Harry A. Nottingham Park Master Plan Property Location: Tract G, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision Description: The Vail Architecture Group will distribute a working Draft Master Plan for the Harry A. Nottingham Park to the Commission for them to review, prepare comments and questions, and discuss during the next regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on August 19, 2008. Discussion: This will be discussed at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. XI. Avon 21 PUD Zoning Application — CONTINUED PUBLIC HEAR/NG Property Location: Lots 21, 65A, 65B, Tract Q, and Parcel TK -3, Block 2, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision / 62, 68, and 182 Benchmark Road Applicant/ Owner: Brian Judge, Orion Development Description: The applicant, Pedro Campos of the Vail Architecture Group, representing the owner of the property, EAH, LLC, is proposing a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a concurrent Preliminary Plan for Subdivision on a new development site comprised of the properties listed above, which are currently zoned Town Center (TC). The proposed PUD is envisioned to be comprised of three new buildings configured and designed as a contemporary, mixed-use development including retail space, office space, residential and lodging uses. The focus of this public hearing will be on the fiscal impact analysis and the probable financial impacts of the proposed project on the Town of Avon and the larger community. Stan Bernstein of Bernstein & Associates This item was tabled from the July 15, 2008 meeting pending further information. Discussion: Matt Gennett explained that the meeting tonight is to present Stan Bernstein's three economic impact models. Also, where the project deviates from the current zoning is also highlighted in the packet materials. Stan Bernstein presented the financial impacts of the proposed redevelopment project. Three new buildings are to replace three existing buildings. The East Tower is to replace the Annex Building, North Tower to replace the Benchmark Shopping Center, and the South Tower is to replace the Christy Sports building. The Town Staff requested modeling sensitivity and demonstrating impacts if phase three were never constructed. The second request to model what would happen if the third phase (South), the one with the most public financial benefit, were constructed first. The analysis looks at impacts to three areas: Water Fund, Capital Projects, and the General/Operating Funds. Stan highlighted the impacts to the General Fund during the construction process, a net decrease of approximately $450,000 per year. Stan Bernstein presented the balance scenario if Phase III were never constructed. While the Capital Projects Fund (RETT) continues to generate, the General Fund balance are negatively impacted. Commissioner Struve questioned the Town Manger, Larry Brooks, whether or not funds could be moved between the General and Capital Funds. Larry explained that the code could be amended; however, this method would not be supported by Staff. Secondly, there must be a nexus between the money coming in and the expenditures on the Town side. Stan Bernstein continued to present the scenario if Phase III were built first and the resulting positive impacts to both the General and Capital Funds. The first five years, during construction, produce positive impacts to the General Fund. At full buildout the numbers look extremely similar to the first scenario presented which was normal construction per the submitted staging plan. Phase III includes the majority of the high quality commercial space and the accommodation related uses and associated taxes. In Stan's opinion, Phase III first would be a better scenario for the Town as it would strengthen the ability to bond, and produce monies up front. The Incremental revenues, by source, were presented. These sources include: sales and accommodation taxes from short term rentals, revenues from the existing base, property tax revenues, RETT initial sales (excluding purchase price of land), RETT secondary sales, water tap fees, construction permits, and timeshare amenities fees. The initial one time RETT funds comprise the majority of the base. Stan presented the summary of incremental general fund operating expenditures by town department. He continued to describe the potential metro district ("Avon 21 Metro") creation, and the resulting bonding capacity if formed. The residential district could levy 45 Mills, and the Commercial district could levy 25 Mills. The district would maintain the plaza space and issue bonds. The assumed maintenance costs amount to $750,000 for the annual plaza maintenance, partially funded from the $1,500 annual user fee for each residential unit. Commissioner Green questioned what the bonds would pay for if there was the possibility of securing. Stan explained that refunds could help pay for up -front utility and infrastructure costs. The potential for URA bonding capacity was also explored by Stan Bernstein. The number of variables and assumptions makes this analysis difficult; however, they have identified approximately $15 million of bond capacity with $11.8 million in proceeds. Stan felt that if Phase III were constructed first this scenario would be more probable since you would be able to issue a series of bonds instead of one large bond at the start of the project. Commissioner Roubos would like to see a financial model of what would happen if Phase III were the only phase constructed. Commissioner Prince questioned the percentage this project area represents for the total Town tax base. Scott Wright stated that this amounts to approximately 7% of the Town's entire tax base. Commissioner Evans questioned what the $1,500 annual user fee amounts to in Mills. Stan responded that it would be about 20 more Mills on top of the projected 45 for residential. Commissioner Prince asked what the different impacts be if the maximum development rights of each lot were modeled. Brian Judge fielded the question and explained that there would be 99 less dwelling units, and that the parking levels are based on the amount of retail/commercial space. Commissioner Evans opened the meeting to public comment. Lee Freeman, resident of California, questioned the relationship between incremental revenues (—$1.1 million) and incremental expenses which amount to a significantly larger number at steady state. Stan Bernstein pointed out that his presentation only highlighted the major incremental expenses, and not every single expense. Kent Beidel, owner of Loaded Joes, questioned what would happen from a modeling perspective if there was some sort of assistance to business owners locating in the new development. Commissioner Evans explained his understanding that the positive cash flow numbers indicate that the commercial space was not a significant factor. Commissioner Evans asked what the current rates to rent commercial space are and what is projected for the future. Brian Judge responded that they are currently approximately $24 per square foot. He also stated that it is impossible to predict the rents due to various influences. Commissioner Evans asked if it was viable for the current Phase III to become the new Phase I, and the possibility of a revised phasing plan to be brought forth at the next meeting. Pedro Campos responded that it is not economically viable as currently proposed. He also stated that the phases could be reviewed and modified to make the current Phase III an economically viable Phase I. Commissioner Roubos wanted the applicant to provide the town with a phasing scenario where the Town does not lose money in the general fund at any point during the development. Matt Gennett asked the applicant to propose the phasing plan and asked the Commission to continue with their review as a whole and potentially move the application to a vote within the next couple meetings. Brian Judge commented that it appeared the Commission wanted him to show a phasing and development that does not lose money in the General Fund. Commissioner Evans stated that it appears that the original phasing plan will not go forward with a recommendation of approval with any annual deficit in the General Fund. Eric Heidemann asked the Commission to make sure all changes to the PUD be viewed with relation to all of the PUD criteria instead of just a sole criterion. Commissioner Green asked his fellow Commissioners to listen to what Staff is recommending and to take a step back at the next meeting and review all 12 criteria and then ask the applicant to revise the proposal if deemed necessary at that time. Commissioner Evans agreed, and urged the other commissioners to take this step. Commissioner Goulding clarified the point of this meeting, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not feel comfortable with the Town taking a loss in the General Fund due to this project. Action: Commissioner Goulding motioned to Table to the August 19, 2008 meeting, with Commissioner Green seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously. XII. Other Business • August 13 there is an Open House for the Main Street Project. • Land -use Code rewrite should be awarded next month. • New Town Attorney is to be appointed on August 26'h, 2008. • Complaint about Lot 41, Block 3, WR being a blight. XIII. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9:31 PM APPROVED: Chris Evans Chairperson Phil Struve Secretary