Loading...
PZC Minutes 030210Town of Avon Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes for March 2, 2010 VON Avon Town Council Chambers Meetings are open to the public C " 11 () P A " " Avon Municipal Building 1 One Lake Street WORK SESSION (5:00pm — 5:15pm) Discussion of Regular Meeting agenda items. Open to the public Town of Avon Comprehensive Transportation Master Plan Visioning (5:15pm — 6:30pm) Discussion: Sally Vecchio outlined the process that has occurred up until this point in the visioning. She presented the first visioning statement. Commissioner Prince recommended that the word "Ski" is changed to "Resort'. Commissioner Green stated that `low impact" and "environmentally friendly" are one in the same. He also suggested that the current language has priorities intended even though they aren't specifically stated. Commissioner Struve commented on the SWAT exercise. He stated that a weakness is currently that parking and driving are too inexpensive. He also wanted the specific East and West Town Center plans called out as strengths. He also wanted to see that the undeveloped Village at Avon was an opportunity. Commissioner Anderson stated that a threat should be the railroad system. He also wanted to point out that portions of the current road layout are dysfunctional in some places. Commissioners Goulding and Green debated the priorities of pedestrians, transit, and automobile and how a vision statement could be written to measure the goal. Commissioner Roubos suggested that Avon should first and foremost be a pedestrian and bicycle town by the year 2035. Commissioner Struve questioned if the intent was complementary modes of transit or if they were actual priorities. Commissioner Goulding suggested changing the commercial centers to areas of high demand. Commissioner Lane highlighted a threat with pedestrian connections provided versus how pedestrian activity actually occurs. The wayfinding can be problematic for pedestrians in Town. Larry Brooks spoke to the general parcel layout of the Town core, and when someone wants to connect from the Main Street to, for example the post office, it can be confusing. The pedestrian corridors and mobility through parcels can be of more importance than simply a sidewalk following an organic street. Sally Vecchio discussed the second visioning statement. Commissioner Green questioned "promote areas of concentrated growth." Sally described the intention of that statement. Commissioner Lane questioned the interconnected network. He wanted more specificity. Commissioner Green suggested Transportation. Commissioner Green suggested tying this statement back to the Comp Plan. Commissioner Roubos suggested that the Town balance service to meet demand. She also suggested that we promote growth in Avon. Commissioner Goulding stated that we need to manage latest technology. Commissioner Roubos suggested that we optimize technology. Sally Vecchio presented the third visioning statement. Commissioner Roubos questioned the amount of parking the town has and the integration of outside parking areas into this visioning statement. Commissioner Anderson suggested that "location" be changed with "strategically located". Commissioner Prince struggled with starting the vision statement with sufficiently. He suggested an alternative. Commissioner Struve suggested that "enhancing the town" be added. Commissioner Goulding questioned the definition of "sufficient". Sally Vecchio presented the fourth visioning statement. Commissioner Struve suggested that campus style paths instead of sidewalk be used. Commissioner Green suggested removing statement 4 and working this visioning statement into statement 1. He provided language. Sally Vecchio presented the fifth and final visioning statement. Commissioner Roubos suggested that this statement was repetitive. Commissioner Struve stated that it was necessary due to its relation to the region. Commissioner Green suggested that the term "complement" be added. Commissioner Prince questioned the meaning of environmental quality in this statement. Commissioner Green suggested that this be revised to complement the regions sustainability goals. REGULAR MEETING (6:30pm) Call to Order The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 6:30pm. II. Roll Call All Commissioners were present. III. Additions and Amendments to the Agenda There were no amendments or additions to the agenda. IV. Conflicts of Interest Commissioner Lane stated he had a conflict of interest on Item X. V. Consent Agenda • Approval of the February 16, 2010 Meeting Minutes • Tabling of Timeshare East Final Design Review to 04/06/10 Action: The meeting minutes were asked to be revised and tabled at the work session. Commissioner Anderson moved to table the minutes. Commissioner Roubos seconded the motion. It passed 7-0. Commissioner Green moved to table Timeshare East. Commissioner Prince seconded the motion and it passed 7-0. VI. Brookside PUD Amendment Property Location: Lot 1, Eaglewood Subdivision Applicant: Vicki Eastman Description: A proposed amendment to an existing PUD to modify the uses for the Brookside property to allow for Short Term Rentals. This Item has been noticed and will be a Public Hearing. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker discussed the modifications to the Staff Report. He discussed the lot and the two properties proposed with this application. Commissioner Goulding clarified that the proposal was for Lots 2 and 3 not as specified on the Agenda Lot 1. Commissioner Green questioned the use on Lot 1. Commissioner Goulding stated that the Staff Report and analysis mimics the process Town Council went through with the Short Term Rental Overlay Zone District. Commissioner Green questioned the information provided in the Packet and how it addressed the location for the proposal. The Public Comment section was opened. The Public Comment section was closed. Commissioner Anderson had no comments. Commissioner Lane had no comments. Commissioner Prince stated it was in substantial compliance with the criteria. Commissioner Struve thanked Staff and the Applicant for completing the application and report. Commissioner Green took no exception to the application. Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the application. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion. It passed 7-0. VII. Canyon Run PUD Amendment Property Location: Lot 3, Nottingham Station PUD 1 120 — 400 Hurd Lane Applicant: Vicki Eastman Description: A proposed amendment to an existing PUD to modify the uses for the Canyon Run property to allow for Short Term Rentals. This item has been noticed and will be a Public Hearing. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker summarized the site and application. He did highlight that this property is directly on a transit route and along a bike path. He stated it did meet the criteria for short term rentals. Commissioner Green questioned when the notification was sent. Matt Pielsticker responded that it was sent 14 days ago. Commissioner Anderson questioned if there were issues with STRs at this location. Matt Pielsticker responded negatively. Commissioner Green questioned that the proper approvals were received from the Applicant. Commissioner Roubos questioned Exhibit B and why it was included. Matt Pielsticker responded that it was intended to show the allowed uses by zoning. Commissioner Roubos questioned the comment in the Staff Report that stated the Covenants allow this use. Commissioner Struve questioned if the amended PUD restricts access to the waterwheel. Matt Pielsticker discussed the access easement. Commissioner Prince questioned the number of units on the property. Vicki Eastman responded that there are only 68 units. Matt Pielsticker discussed the differences between the varying documents. The Public Comment portion was opened. The Public Comment portion was closed. Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the application with Staff's recommended motion. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. It passed 7-0. VIII. Trees of Colorado Special Review Use Renewal Property Location: McGrady Acres Applicant: Paul Daugherty Description: An application to extend a Special Review use to allow for the Trees of Colorado tree sales operation to continue. Discussion: Matt Pielsticker discussed the location of the property and the history of the use. He highlighted the fact that the use is currently expired. Commissioner Struve questioned if it was expiring or had it expired. Commissioner Struve questioned if this property was in the Village at Traer Creek. Matt Pielsticker responded negatively. Commissioner Struve questioned if there was common ownership between the two properties. Staff responded affirmatively. Commissioner Struve asked about condition 2 of the original approval. Commissioner Green questioned the differences between the previous approval and the current recommended motion. Commissioner Roubos stated that the chain link fence was the missing condition and asked if we needed it to remain. Matt Pielsticker stated that it did not need to remain because it has already been installed. Commissioner Goulding questioned the driveway access. Matt Gennett responded that it was a road base material. Commissioner Green questioned if there have been any complaints. The Public Comment portion was opened. The Public Comment portion was closed. Action: Commissioner Prince moved to approve the application with the conditions in Staff's Report. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. It passed 7-0. IX. Wolff Residence Property Location: Lot 114, Block 1, Wildridge Subdivision 12080 Beaver Creek Point Applicant: Krista Petkovsek, Morgante Wilson Architect 1 Owner: Ted & Anne Wolff Description: A Sketch Design review for a single-family residence on Beaver Creek Point. The residence utilizes stucco, dry stacked Colorado moss stone, cedar trim, and either asphalt shingles or standing seam metal roofing. Discussion: Jared Barnes highlighted the Staff report by reading into the record the site restrictions for this particular property. Specifically he discussed the height restriction and the building envelope for all building improvements. Krista Petkovsek, the project manager, highlighted the project. Krista Petkovsek asked the commission if the grading was acceptable in order to accommodate the second level of the house and stili meet height requirement. Commissioner Anderson asked how the drainage would work in the area by the front entrance. Krista Petkovsek stated that they are speaking to structural engineers and civil engineers and that area drains may be used. Commissioner Anderson responded that area drains will freeze and clog in the winter time unless it was heated. The Commissioners asked about driveway grades and the slab elevation and its relationship with the street elevation. It was suggested to bring the elevation of the garage slab up above the street elevation to facilitate positive drainage. Krista Petkovsek questioned the grading and the ability to grade outside of the building envelope area. The existing and proposed contours need to be shown at final design to help understand the limits of disturbance. Commissioner Goulding explained the concern with over grading and the need to show all of the grading at final design to understand how the limits of disturbance will blend in with the native vegetation. The question as to what can and cannot happen outside of the building envelope was discussed. Jared Barnes responded that he would review what was permitted on the adjacent, recently developed properties. Krista Petkovsek asked if this included below grade and foundation portions. Jared Barnes stated that these areas were included. Commissioner Green wanted to make sure that the slopes were correct on the driveway, as determined by floor level. There was a possibility of ice buildup in front of the garage door. Krista Petkovsek continued by asking about the walkway in close proximity to the easement and wanted to know if this was permissible. Commissioner Struve noticed there was crawl space under the garage and would like to understand why. Krista Petkovsek stated that this was due to the grades and that space would not be finished. Commissioner Struve was concerned about the linear ridgeline. Commissioner Green questioned the exposed rafters and if they are exposed outside. Krista Petkovsek responded affirmatively. Commissioner Lane commented on the timbers and felt that it would be nice if they were larger to help the massing of the building. Commissioner Green had concerns about consistency with lentils. Krista Petkovsek explained that they were trying to do something different with the smaller windows. Commissioner Green felt the ridgeline is clean and he thinks it could be a detriment to the design if this was further broken up. He discussed the metal roofing and how we are typically concerned with glare issues so the roof option needs to be thought through. He also commented on the large windows and the glazing maximum. He stated that is needed to be modified. Commissioner Roubos felt that the north elevation was lacking architectural interest. She also commented on the design with regard to 70% of an elevation in a single wall plane without at least a 2' offset. Commissioner Prince had some concern with how this is going to fit in with the neighborhood. He stated that the color scheme will be important. Other comments were related to the landscape plan, building outside of the envelope, the entry with regard to the easement, consistency with window fenestration and detailing, roofing material's reflectivity, color palette and its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The Commissioners also stated that the proposed materials and colors will necessitate a full mockup. Action: No action required on sketch design. X. Gore Range Natural Science School Property Location: Lot 3, Wildwood Resort Subdivision 1 Buck Creek Road Applicant: Brian Sipes, Zehren & Associates / Owner: The Gore Range Natural Science School Description: Final Design review for several Gore Range Science School (GRNSS) buildings on Lot 3 of the Buck Creek PUD. Discussion: Matt Gennett briefly described the process that occurred. He also discussed the proposal. Commissioner Anderson questioned how staff has accepted the unbroken ridgeline. Commissioner Prince asked if that was a residential guideline. Matt Gennett responded that the solar panels helped to break up the massing of the roof. He did state that item was in the Residential portion of the Guidelines. Sherry Dorward, discussed the site plan and the minimal changes that have occurred. She highlighted the sustainability goals of the project. She also commented that the wide path is necessary to achieve ADA accessibility. Dave Kaslek discussed the roof ridge for the Mountain Discovery Center (MDC). He stated that there are no quantitative restrictions, but there were qualitative criteria. He discussed the views of the proposed building and how the long linear roof ridge will be minimized from view. Dave Kaslek also discussed the materiality proposed for each building and its application. Commissioner Struve questioned the living roof and how to ensure it will grow. Sherry Dorward commented on the design. She specified that 6 inches of dirt will be provided and the design will have low sloping roof tops. Commissioner Green questioned the setback encroachment. Dave Kaslek stated that only a single building encroaches, MDC. Matt Gennett discussed the PUD requirement for that encroachment. Commissioner Green questioned the use of cementicious panels on the east elevation of the MDC. Commissioner Goulding questioned the construction of the building into the stream setback. He wanted to know more information regarding the limit of construction in regard to that property. Commissioner Goulding questioned the Solar Collectors on the side of the Field Studies Base Camp (FSBC) building. Markian Feduschak stated that those were for radiant heat. Commissioner Struve questioned the type of solar collectors proposed. Markian Feduschak stated that those were not finalized. They are still trying to design the solar system. Commissioner Green stated that at times the architectural character of a building can offset the long unbroken roof ridge. He stated that the entire campus and this building should be allowed to keep the unbroken roof ridges. Commissioner Green applauded the applicant for the sustainability measure undertaken. He did have a concern with the approval of solar panels. He wanted the Planning and Zoning Commission to have final approval over the location of the solar panels. Commissioner Green also wanted to see a mock-up of the materials and colors. Commissioner Struve stated he agreed with the mock-up condition. He didn't want it to be exceedingly expensive. He did comment on the unbroken ridgeline and stated the design overcame the issues with it. Commissioner Struve stated he preferred the crushed stone path material instead of asphalt. Commissioner Roubos had issues with the long unbroken roof line. She was also concerned with the grass roofs, especially their view during minimal snow winters. Commissioner Prince also questioned the ridgeline when he viewed the elevations. He did state that the overall composition of the site, landscaping and the future solar panels helped him become comfortable with the unbroken ridgeline. He did have a comment about bear attracting shrubbery. Commissioner Anderson stated he was alright with the roofline due to its orientation to the roadway above. He stated the 45 degree angle helped. He stated that the scale of the building to the site will be acceptable. Commissioner Goulding asked about a stand alone trash enclosure. He stated that the item was on Sheet C.2.6. Commissioner Goulding questioned the boardwalk materials. Sherry Dorward stated that they , will be wooden. Commissioner Goulding stated that when more detail is available the Commission will be able to review the proposal. Commissioner Goulding questioned the phased project and its relation to roadway, especially the use of gravel. Justin Hildreth stated that this road will be permanent and that Staff is working with the applicant's engineers to design the roadway. Commissioner Goulding questioned if there were any plans to limit the amount of "creeping" a gravel road experiences. Sherry Dorward stated that the road will be slightly raised and will contain boulders to limit the "growth" of the road. Commissioner Goulding questioned the use of road base as a parking area. Sherry Dorward stated that the feel was to be more rural. Justin Hildreth stated that it was a private parking area and there is leeway. Commissioner Goulding questioned the amount of solar glare into the building and light pollution out of the building. Dave Kaslek stated that the buildings do have solar shades on the exterior of the building. Commissioner Goulding discussed the roof issue. He questioned the varied and articulated portion of the design guidelines. He stated that as the two buildings are linked, MDC and FSBC, the roof becomes varied and articulated. He did state that a clear finding of fact will be necessary if this design is approved to ensure future designs don't view this as a precedent. Action: Commissioner Green moved to approve the application with the following findings: The character of the roof on the Mountain Discovery Center meets the intent of the Design Guidelines due to: one the location of and relation to the building on the site; two its relationship to other buildings on the site; and three the character of the adjacent buildings to the MDC are such that articulation and character of the architecture meet the intent of the Design Guidelines. And with the following conditions: 1. A Mock-up be provided on site to review and ensure the quality of materials and colors with the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewing the mock-up; 2. Applicant receive approval of the solar panels from P&Z; 3. Construction setback shown in relation to the stream setbacks near the MDC and other building be revised and submitted to staff for review; 4. Boardwalk materials should be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission approved prior to construction of the boardwalks. Commissioner Struve seconded the motion. Commissioner Goulding asked if Staff's recommended finding could be number 1 and Commissioner Greens finding was number 2. Commissioner Green accepted the modification. Commissioner Prince questioned the necessary size of the mock-up. Commissioner Green stated that it was up to the applicant. The motion passed 5-1. XI. WordStar Final Design Review Property Location: Lot 9, Block 5, Wildridge Subdivision Applicant: Jeffrey Manley, Martin Manley Architects/ Owner: Wildavon Enterprises, LLC Description: Review of a Final Design application for three (3) single-family homes with shared driveway access off Wildwood Road. Discussion: Jared Barnes highlighted the comments made at the first hearing and the changes made to the plans, including building separation from 10' overhangs and 13' walls; revised landscape table. He read into the record staff's recommendation and the two conditions of approval. Commissioner Roubos asked for Jared Barnes to explain the turnaround in staff's recommendation from a strong denial to approval. Jared Barnes responded that given the Commissions general acceptance of single-family clustered homes, coupled with the fact that the applicant provided assurance with phase two's engineered plans Staff has accepted the site plan. He also stated that the increased architectural interest and greater separation between units also helped in the change of Staff's recommendation. Commissioner Prince asked for clarification on the engineering term "batter". Justin Hildreth explained that it was the area between the front face of a boulder wall and the top of the boulder wall, essentially the splay up the hill where a wall is constructed. Commissioner Goulding questioned the statement on page three of staff's report, "buildings comply with all platted setbacks and the majority of construction activity is kept out of the easements. Jared Barnes responded that nothing in phase one encroaches into setbacks, but in the conceptual phase two plans there are some areas that could be encroaching. He stated that when a more developed plan for phase two is brought forth the plans will comply with this requirement. Dominic Mauriello commented on behalf of the applicant and stated that he only wanted to address questions the commission might have. Jeff Manley walked through the building elevations and highlighted the changes. He showed the added wood element and the larger changes to building three with new building forms added. He also commented on the mass of the bump out on building two was increased for additional interest. Commissioner Green asked for clarification on phasing. He also wanted to know when the retaining wall behind the phase one buildings would be constructed as shown on Sheet A1.2. Jeff Manley responded that it would be constructed during phase two, but the hammerhead turnaround would be constructed during phase one. Justin Hildreth directed Commissioner Green to Sheet C3.0 that shows more clearly what exactly is happening for phase one and it the associated grading of the subject area. Commissioner Prince questioned building one's south elevation and asked if there are two entry doors. Jeff Manley stated that one door is into the garage and one into the main entrance to the house. Commissioner Goulding asked if the applicants had no problems with engineer's report. Dominic Mauriello stated that is correct. Commissioner Green questioned construction parking on W. Wildwood Road and the issue is that people would walk down from the road into the site. Jared Barnes stated that any parking in the road right of way is subject to a right-of-way permit. Justin Hildreth clarified that it was for the initial phase of construction of the roadway when there is grading, utilities, etc. Commissioner Goulding asked if there would be consistency with the boulder wall design across the site. Jeff Manley stated that they are trying to use as many boulder walls as possible and if they need to go to a keystone type system they plan to blend in with the boulder walls as much as possible. Commissioner Goulding stated the concern must be addressed by showing Staff details for their approval. Action: Commissioner Struve moved to approve the application with a third condition: the boulder walls that are consistent in size and appearance. Commissioner Lane seconded the motion. Commissioner Green asked if it included staff's two recommended conditions and then a third in addition. Commissioner Struve affirmed. Commissioner Green questioned if Commissioner Struve would accept a modification that if there was a change in material, an approval would be required by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Struve stated that the change would be approved by Staff. Commissioner Lane accepted the modification. Commissioner Goulding requested that the motion be revised to add a fourth condition as follows: This approval is not a vesting on Phase II and that Phase II will have to comply with any applicable standards and codes at the time of submittal. Commissioner Goulding went on to clarify that Phase II can not use Phase I for a hardship for a variance. Both Commissioners Struve and Lane accepted the modifications and the motion passed 7-0. XII. Other Business + Commissioner Green commented on the vicinity map in the staff report for 2080 Beaver Creek and pointed out that the graphic was less than clear and a more accurate representation of current conditions is warranted if possible. + ZAC meeting discussion XIII. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15pm. Approved on March 16, 201 W. Todd Goulding Chairperson .J Phil Struve Secretary